From Wikisource
(Redirected from Wikisource:SCRIPTORIUM)
Jump to: navigation, search
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one; please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource. There are currently 344 active users here.



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.

SEARCH: Subphrase matching[edit]

There is now an advanced search feature within user preferences that enables subsidiary phrase searching. This phrase matching is very useful for finding subpages of works. For example typing Adamson, He into the general search field will show in the typeahead function the two biographical works Adamson, Henry (DNB00) and A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen/Adamson, Henry.

To activate this search function go to special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-searchoptions and select the option Subphrase matching (recommended for longer article titles) and save the preference. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Project by New Law College Pune[edit]


There is a discussion under progress at w:en:New Law College (Pune) to take up proof reading, validation, compilation etc. of Indian Laws and to begin with Copyright laws and Intellectual property laws at Portal:Copyright law/Copyright law of India as a (internship) project, most likely in consultation with CIS A2K and local wikipedian community. Activity likely to begin by middle of next week.

Undersigned requests your initial support in making other Intellectual property laws available, and initial support to new users. Please do note that most of the faculty and student's first exposure of editing is begining with wikisource and may not necessarily have previous exposure to wikipedia editing.

Besides would like to create a Project come Dashboard kind of page.
Besides would like to know if wikisource is already having any thing simillar tow:en:Wikipedia:Education_program separately for wikisource.
Suggessions are welcome.

Thanks for all support of all en wikisource community in this initiative.

Mahitgar (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like a worthwhile project, Will this be solely in English or were translations (to official languages) on the appropriate Wikisource also being considered?
Although it may not yet exist in an open format, something else I'd also strongly suggest transcribing if licensing permits is a list of former British measures repealed in the Republic of India after 1947 to present day. As I understood it Indian legal practice followed English practice closely, and so a "Table of Statutes" for the Republic of India would almost certainly exist?
Did you plan to note in the headers of the transcribed items, information concerning subsequent repeals or amendments, or were you only transcribing the "as enacted" versions of the legislation concerned? Having an accurate Table of Statutes would assist in providing this metadata.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I will also note that there was a series of {{cl-act-paragraph}} templates to assist with formatting legislation with side-titles, BUT having been involved with their development, was of the view that they need to be drastic overhaul before being used further. Other contributors here may be able to advise on formatting and cross-referencing issues.
It was however my understanding that in general, Wikisource used the "Short title" of a measure for linking purposes, Disambugating where needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:ShakespeareFan00 for your valuable feed back. The focus of this college is mainly english specific; (Translations of entire laws will be too big a project for now, For example at Marathi wikipedia copyright case articles I am translating relevant sections only, at a latter stage they may be clubbed together at mr-wikisource and remainin translation can be done; For rest of Indic language translators looking for participation of different audience some thing like journalism students would be more effective.) Your discussion also reminded me need to take account pre-indipendance copyright acts applicable in Portugese and French published in Goa and Pondicherry.

Transcribing if licensing permits is a list of former British measures repealed in the Republic of India after 1947 to present day is a good suggession; this and other suggessions I will inform about this discussion to project co-ordinating faculty.

About wikisource style guide a seperate group of students can be made to study style guide and inform their peers.

Thanks for your valuable feed back once again and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Some of the repealed acts are listed in Index:British Statutes (Application to India) Repeal Act 1960.djvu. Another list is at w:List of Acts of the Parliament of India. Hrishikes (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
We would not usually have a long discussion in an announcement.

We have always been supportive of Wikisource:WikiProjects. I would invite you to set up a project then announce it and invite people to discuss it there. There is a range of expertise and knowledge that can be provided or requested. Style and templates is definitely an issue to discuss, and these projects will have examples of what they have done. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


Removing NARA from the Main page Proofread of the month box[edit]

I propose that the mention of NARA in the current collaboration section of the Main Page be removed because as is, it is outdated and confusing. To this end I set up an example in my following sandboxes to show how it would look like:

While I have no issue rotating out the NARA project, I do not think that we should be removing the projects from the collaboration template. We end up becoming very boring and static on the front page, and not enticing people in to sample our wares. We would become one dimensional. We could be utilising something like what I put in place for {{active projects}}. We should be leading people into where there is active work and/or long-term projects. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Proposals for changing the Collaboration should be made at Wikisource talk:Community collaboration. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh cool, (yet another) talk page to stalk; didn't know about that one. It seems to me that given our size in terms of permanent members (aka those who log in just about every day), the best place to post these sorts of things would actually be here. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps post a notice here, and refer to Wikisource talk:Community collaboration; I agree that discussion should resume there. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I support this proposal as the NARA project is quite dead and unlikely to ever be revived. I would like to see other topic-based collaborations come about, and keeping the {{collaboration}} template free of stale/discontinued efforts would be a good starting point. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Is there a place where we could accumulate a list of on-going collaborative projects that could be rotated through in the "Collaboration" box on the Main page? I know, for example, that we have efforts for EB1911, EB (9th ed.), the DGRBM (Dict. of Gr. and Roman Biog. & Myth.), and there are doubtless others of which many community members are not aware. It would be nice to accumulate a list of these efforts somewhere, so that we can draw upon them and keep the Main Page fresh, or even set up something that selects one of these listed projects at random from a template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean something like WS:WP? Or possibly a version of {{active projects}}. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for everyone's input which helped my scant knowledge. I don't want to discard anything. I meant that what would be considered as "{{recent projects}}" should not be given prominent display on the main page, superseding the current monthly project. I have nothing against placing as much information as possible on the main page. I just wish that the info be placed in order of importance and better clarity. I looked at the French Wikisource Main page which is endlessly long, but everything is clearly spaced.

  • My post below, was the result of my confusion. Couldn't figure out how many Proofread of the month projects are in the works. Consider someone who is new to the site. — Ineuw talk 19:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


@Ineuw: For years we have always tried to have three 'active' collaborations, with the current renditions being the sprint "PotM", the marathon "Project" and the tweak "Maintenance". Something for everyone!?! Though at this stage you would have to say that at a coordination level, two are moribund. You are totally correct that we should always have clarity, and we should be striving to improve our offering and looking to freshen our site.

It does take volunteers and some of us crustier admins/users have done it, it does take those less crusty to take the step, AND for those of us crusties to (try to) let go a bit, and let others have the opportunity to shine. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Truth be told, my reason for looking closely at the main page was to figure out what is it I can/dare to commit myself to, and contribute in the way of maintenance, since I don't do programming in javascript. — Ineuw talk 23:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Created a new sample in User:Ineuw/Sandbox4 where NARA was moved to its own frame below the current collaboration. The problem is that the NARA template contains the word "current" which should be "recent". Can I replace the the word? And, can this model replace the on the main page? — Ineuw talk 06:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Font-style and font-size of layout 2 of display options[edit]

Would it be a possible to change the display options of layout 2 in the main namespace to the same font style and size as the other layouts? The current style now is Garamond which is not a very palatable font style and it's also smaller. I believe that the other layouts use Arial, and guessing a 1em font-size. I hope that the community would not object to uniformity. — Ineuw talk 04:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Part of the reason for having this font is to preserve the serifs. In works on classical texts, it can be difficult or even impossible to tell what you are reading without serifs, because of the abundance of various styles of Roman numerals, abbreviations, and uses of lower-case "L". And changing the font size would retroactively affect the margins and line wrapping of hundreds of pages. So, not a good idea either. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
First, I find that applying the words "classical texts" to displays is really meaningless. Second, I would like to take a poll as to how many users use the Layout 2. — Ineuw talk 04:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
You didn't read carefully: I said works on classical texts. That is, works about the literature of ancient Greece and Rome, the period we call "classical". Works where the various abbreviations II. Il. and ll. may all appear on the same page, each being entirely different, yet indistinguishable without serifs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Umm, I would think that the means to that resolution would be to create Layout 4, use the config for 2 and amend the font. Additional layouts are easy. Noting that we also have the gadgetised trial layout where we can play with an additional layout in front space, though without inconveniencing anyone. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: I didn't mean that what you said was meaningless. I said it because no matter how hard we try it will never be like the originals. This Layout issue also falls in the same category. Aside from being unable to read my work in full width mode, I was having problems at the beginning with centered image sizes, floating image sizes, and table layouts. Narrowing the layout, close to the original, resolved these problems. The PSM original is 540px, and Display layout 2 is 560px. If Layout 4 is set to 540px, would make me very happy. — Ineuw talk 06:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixed width is a problem for mobile phones, and we should be avoiding fixing widths unless absolutely necessary. At least with the use of layouts, we allow people to have choice, if the default does not suit. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I thought that Layout 2 is controlled by a width value. In any case, whatever you think is best — Ineuw talk 08:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is, the difference is that they can toggle out of it to something useful to them. If you set a fixed width in the template, then toggling layouts is non-functional as you have set the width. Layouts utilises the code in MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js which is more editable and a better way to code (is my understanding). — billinghurst sDrewth 10:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Placed a copy of PageNumbers.js in my namespace to test Layout 4 and it works well. May I add the Layout 4 snippet to MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js? — Ineuw talk 00:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


For what it's worth, I read everything in Layout 2 because I prefer the serif font. As the layouts are really a matter of preference more than anything, I would suggest (and support) the addition of a new layout to address a desire for such a thing, rather than an adjustment to a long-existing layout that others prefer for certain (or all) works. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Mukkakukaku:. A majority of one is good enough for me to proceed. — Ineuw talk 06:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Bot approval requests[edit]


  • Bot name: SpBot (talkcontribs)
  • Bot operator: Euku (talkcontribs) (home wiki: de.WP)
  • Automatic or manually assisted: automatic
  • Purpose of the bot: Archiving discussions with Template:Autoarchive resolved section
  • Edit period(s): Nightly, about 1-6 edits/minute
  • Programming language(s) (and API) used: Pywikibot (Python)
  • Other projects that are already using this bot: 8 projects: de.wikipedia, de.wiktionary, de.wikisource, ja.wikipedia, ko.wikipedia, meta, wikidata and commons
  • Additional information:

I was asked to run this bot for en.wikisource too. This bot is for archiving resolved discussions and working queues, that are tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}}. For example see the German "quality assurance": wikipedia:de:Wikipedia:Qualitätssicherung/20. Dezember 2016. For more details, please see Template:Autoarchive_resolved_section. My SUL bot account has more than 800.000 edits at all - most of them made in the German Wikipedia. This archiving task is running almost non-stop since 2007. --Euku (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Euku. To confirm that I asked for this bot to be applied locally so that we can update our archiving practices. I have seen the bot work successfully at meta in managing important WMF-central page. Also to note that these are pages with header templates that were set by Pathoschild as he set here, and, importantly, it archives within sections so can be used by us at WS:PD, WS:CV and WS:AN. It will only be operating in areas where we set it, and that will be talk pages (... talk: and Wikisource:), all of which are non-content. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
This would be a useful bot to have running. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

When should I start? --Euku (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I started to run the bot daily/nightly at 3 am UTC. As it still has no bot flag, it will also notify users when it edits a user talk page. Please also note that for now there is no page that uses this bot. :-/ --Euku (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Apologies Euku, I dropped the ball on activating the templates, though did add them inactively in places. I had set them in awaiting 'crat action earlier.
@Hesperian, @Mpaa, @Zhaladshar: Is there something that you are wishing to see at this stage? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm pretty comfortable. I checked out how SpBot worked on Meta and it seems like it works great. I say we accumulate a couple actions from SpBot here to make sure it works fine on our wiki.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I have set WS:CV, WS:PD and WS:AN to each archive, and seven days post application of {{section resolved}}. First two to archive at default level 2 (per discussions to not further sort sections into 'kept', 'deleted', 'other') and the latter at level 3, hence archiving within sections. I will presume that any micro configuration can occur via discussion at the respective talk pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Can we perhaps do WS:RT as well? I tagged the resolved sections of that a few months back, so it should be good to go as well. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done at level 1 header. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks like the config isn't quite right.... (Though honestly it would be useful if the bot told us what was wrong. Eg. what it was expecting that it couldn't find or whatever.) Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Presumably it wants a full path, rather than a relative path (referring to examples). Not a major issue, I thought that it may be the case, just my habits. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

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

Category:Christian authors[edit]

Move to Category:Christians per other categories in Category:Authors by religion and the fact that they are all authors--it's redundant to say. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, why not. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Sam Wilson 01:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose My understanding is that it is a category for our Author: ns pages only, so we run the risk that we will then start having all the biographies added to it. There is some evidence of that approach in some of the other categories. When one uses the categorisation tools, one does not see the parent categories so the name needs to be fully evident. If that means we fix the other categories, then we can do that. So that is my counter proposal. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. This would also bring them inline with other author categories such as nationality or time period. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would like to point out that the other religions do not have the word "authors" in them. For example, Category:Buddhists, Category:Hindus, Category:Druids, and so forth. We should be consistent, whatever we decide. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
We definitely need to make a decision and do something in this space. We are either categorising author pages in among the articles or we are not. I went to add A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen/Ballantyne, John to Category:publishers and it is all author pp. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure articles within an encylopedia (or dictionary, as it may be) should be categorized. Like we have a Category:Cookbooks but we don't put individual recipes in there. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On further thought, I would like to perhaps raise the question -- what even is the purpose of these categories? Because statistically speaking, almost all of our 19th century English/American/Canadian/other European authors is going to be Christian, plus a large number of our encyclopedia articles in (for example) the DNB -- if we go that route. What does it matter the religion of the author? If the author writes religious works, cool -- put their works in a "Christian young adult fiction" category (or similar). But generally speaking religion is irrelevant to our purposes here, just like a categorization based on the fact that a person is blond, nearsighted, divorced, or male would be. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
If we address the nomenclature issue here that would be great as for many categories whether we differentiate between authors and articles. The issue of whether a category makes sense or not, is kept or not may be better in WS:PD, and presumably part of that is matching with other categories in other wikis. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Author:Edward Stanley (1779–1849)[edit]

Move to Author:Edward Stanley (1779-1849). Move error. Also, the move text says "You should also update the associated Wikidata item to maintain language links on moved page." but that is no longer necessary--the changes are automatically made on d:. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Moved it over the redirect.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The Wikidata component of the move message is a system message, and seems more aligned with connectivity to Wikidata. There is nothing we can do about it at this end, it is not within the scope of Mediawiki: namespacebillinghurst sDrewth 04:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: No, it is probably something in LocalSettings.php and would have to be changed with a ticket in phab:. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe that it is more likely to sit within one of the plethora of Extension: that runs Wikibase (Special:Version), and its alignment with the namespaces that Wikidata connects to and watches. Either way, it sits outside of our direct control. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
To be even more exacting the words will sit where WMF system messages reside and it will be in multiple languages, though its application will be through the extension. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Index:Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management.djvu[edit]

Can someone patch this for the two missing pages, so I can restart the efforts i was making on it? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

HathiTrust has several copies, including this 1909 copy which at a very casual glance looks like it may be the same as the 1907 edition. It's an ugly scan, but will do for patchwork. I am concerned that pages 897 and 898 missing isn't the only problem; page 896 is present, but partially illegible, and some of that bleeds over to page 895. I'd like to know that that problem doesn't extend to any other pages.
I can get copies of the pages from HathiTrust, but I can't patch the DjVu, and while I could probably figure that out, I don't know how to load it without breaking the current proofreading.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I suggest that you just upload the two pages as a separate djvu file. Someone can create the index page, then they can be transcribed and transcluded into the existing presentation. The file at Commons can be fixed when someone has the time and skills, and that can be backfilled easily enough here. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Four pages are missing. After 896, there is a blank page, then an image, then 897-898. 1909 and 1915 versions are same as the 1907 version, at least in this portion. Yes, the 1909 version has an ugly scan in Hathitrust, so the pages should be taken from the 1915 version. Hrishikes (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Fixing the file at commons is straightforward. Re-aligining the local copy would need a block move of later pages (that were originally done when this work was in two chunks.), and a page list update.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Namely those higher than Page:Mrs_Beeton's_Book_of_Household_Management.djvu/1011 (inclusive), wasn't there a script for this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC) (Ammended to say the range includes the mentioned page. 10:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I imagine an admin can take care of moving the pages easily enough . I can help with the djvu file. Do you want me to just insert blank pages or should I insert the pages from the hathitrust book Hrishikes mentioned? Let me know. Jpez (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Ideally, if the hathi-trust pages are identical between editions, insert the content pages, but there is certainly no harm in using blanks until edition compatible pages are found :). Don't forget to check if the text layer will also need re-alignment. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I've added the missing pages but the filesize is 118mb, and wikicommons won't let me replace a file with one that is larger than 100mb. I don't know if there is a way around this. Jpez (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jpez: You can try chunked upload. You can copy it from my global.js (at Meta) to yours. Hrishikes (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Thanks to the awesome tool @Hrishikes: suggested. Now the pages after the new inserted pages need to be mass moved to there correct positions. Jpez (talk) 09:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneMpaa (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Care Act Pending Repeal to Minimizing the Economic Burden of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Pending Repeal. Can't create due to blacklist. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
To note that I have amended the global title blacklist. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Request moves of Certain U.S. Presidents[edit]

Donald John Trump --> Donald Trump: Similar to the vein of Barack Obama or Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump is mainly referred to by his first and last names, not usually with his middle name like "Donald John Trump". It is like having a page named "Barack Hussein Obama" or "Ronald Wilson Reagan". Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

William Jefferson Clinton --> Bill Clinton: William Jefferson Clinton is known mainly as "Bill Clinton". Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yoshiman6464: Per Help:Author_pages#Page_name, we are to include authors' full names. Why some pages lack this is beyond me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


Per above Please move Author:Barack Obama to Author:Barack Hussein Obama II--it is move protected. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Are there any works by his father? If not, then don't need the "II" disambiguator. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Moved though to expanded name, not with suffix. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

Open access articles in Wikisource[edit]

I'm from the NOA project of the German Technical Information Library. It hasn't started yet, but we are planning to harvest open access publications. Mainly we are dealing with figures, but we would also like to bring fulltexts to Wikisource. I've worked in Wikisource a few years ago and know how crucial quality is. We will only do as much we can sufficiently handle with our manpower and are not intending to overstretch any volunteers resources. The publications will only be from full digital journals, so no OCR is necessary.

I would like to hear your opinion, which prerequisites are still missing and what you generally think about such work.--TIB-NOA (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@TIB-NOA: Let me know when you start migration--I'd like to help if I can. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, is this potentially dealing with open access textbooks? If so, as someone who knows little if anything about them, would there be any sort of need to perhaps do "editions" of the text, if it gets revised often? John Carter (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm glad you pointed out that. Textbooks and reference works do contain excellent information and figures for many wiki places. And in general articles and books can be processed likewise. So, potentially yes! Editions may be needed whenever automatic processing isn't feasible. Tonitrus (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@TIB-NOA, @Daniel Mietchen: I am presuming that you two have talk about the earlier work that Daniel did, and the discussion that we had at the time that Daniel and his colleagues uploaded a stack of works into the user namespace. In short, we will happily have the works, the important part is formatting (that DM explore) and getting the requisite wikidata in place for the articles. Bulk full digital is not something that the community cannot manage, BUT it is not something that we have well-addressed in the Wikidata age. I would think that we would be looking to get as much data as possible into WD, especially original source, and pulling it through rather than overly complicating matters here. We would probably want to talk to Wikidata about having a flag that clearly identifies digital sourced data, and one which we inhale rather than use our transcription ribbon. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
We are indeed doing something similar to Daniels Open Access Media Importer Bot. Probably Biblionik has already told him about us.
Yes, I told Daniel :) And a few other Wikipedians as well, see also my proposal at WikiCite 2016: Biblionik (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: With ribbon you are meaning a badge, like the stars for FA/GA?--TIB-NOA (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@TIB-NOA: The primary conversation that we had with Daniel about the bot is at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2014-09#Automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles, there is probably other bits around; plus Daniel and I had a long chat at WM2014. It would be good if we can align the two components, to whatever extent, noting that that bot also uploaded images to Commons.

Wtih regard to ribbon, at the moment there is a direct relationship between the transcribed pages that are scan supported; an example is Shakespeare, William (DNB00) (up top). We migrate those ribbons to the badges at Wikidata. With your proposed additions, they will not have the ribbon as they aren't going through the (not proofread) ... (proofread) ... (validated) cycle, so we will need another means to identify a text to text relationship. I suggest that a new badge at WD could be that means, and have started a discussion at d:Wikidata talk:Wikisource. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

On my user talk page, there has been a little continuance of this discussion, though I want to bring it back to the community, and put forward some ideas that the community should discuss to progress this issue ...

Digital documents[edit]

Our community's approach to transcribing and transcluding works predominantly sprung up around reproducing old books, though we have had the occasional foray into modern documents. The system that has been set up has had a focus on a source to which we can verify an OCR/transcription which works well books/documents/... published on paper. It does not work well for digital documents, and we need a shared opinion and consensus to how we move forward with digital documents.

We need to

  1. Explicitly accept that we can host digital-only documents and that these works do not need to be taken through the index/page verification process and then transcluded.
  2. Sort out a marking system to identify digital documents akin though different our verifying ribbon
  3. Look at our requirements for how these works are displayed as if they can be dropped into WS electronically, then the expectation should be that the metadata can be dropped into wikidata equally easily
  4. Capture the consensus of the community into our help documentation

Can others identify other matters that should be discussed by the community in this regard? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

To these points I would like to add comment …

  1. The badges system in WD is a ready place to mark a work as digital against the link to the document here and that information can be extracted back into our systems to display as digital-only. I have submitted phabricator:153186 to address this issue.
  2. There is good scope to do an adaptation of {{header}} to something like {{header/digital}} (or something) that can completely extract data from Wikidata to populate the header without any intervention required locally. So if we are having a bot we would apply all fields via imported parameters, and its use in itself is a verification of known work from a known site with known, allowable copyright (all the provenance components)

billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Update This is in the process of being implemented in the Wikidata code, so I propose to start development here to allow for its usage, and look to other components discussed above. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

To the origins of the project: The Recitation-bot (talkcontribs) (run by Maximilianklein) has already imported ~200 documents from PubMed Central (PMC) and converted them to Wikitext in 2014-2016. They were not placed in the main namespace, but as subpages of Wikisource:WikiProject Open Access/Programmatic import from PubMed Central. Now my project is trying to do the same, but with much more documents and not only relying on PMC. Of course I will wait for your permission and until a badge at Wikidata is ready.

Examples, how my work could look like are Challenges and opportunities for digital history (Wikidata object) and Overview on CO2 valorization: challenge of molten carbonates. I think, that digital documents should get an extra namespace to distinguish them from PDF-based documents, e.g. Fulltext:Challenges and opportunities for digital history.--TIB-NOA (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Update There is now a badge on Wikidata for "digital documents" ([1]).--TIB-NOA (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Author pages without a license — maintenance[edit]

Hi to all. If anyone has some maintenance time over the next while, I have found that we have about 800 author pages that are without copyright tags. I have generated the (perpetual) query petscan:648761 Check for author pages without {{license}}. Every little bit helps. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being a bit dumb right now, but that petscan link doesn't do anything for me -- eg. it leads me to a blank, not-filled-out instance of petscan. Help? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Nevermind, figured it out. This link worked instead: The petscan prefix link generated this url which doesn't work: --Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Mukkakukaku: ouch, thanks. To also note that I have applied a fix to the interwiki map for petscan, though that fix won't go through until next week when deployments resume. [Now I need to severely castigate the breaker of the link (when/if I find out who did it)]. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
fwiwi @Mukkakukaku:, petscan links have been fixed so that the shortcut now works!. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I’ve been looking at a few of the authors and I’m having a hard time deciding what template I should use for modern authors who are still alive and whose works have been published after 1996. The Author help page only lists a few simple situations that do not apply. Some examples where I was unsure what to use: Author:Jabbar Manaf oglu Mammadov, Author:Vernon Nemitz or Author:Noni. Any advice? Marjoleinkl (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Following the discussion, please think about how the author pages could be updated, or other pages have the required information and what links we could add. Alertness/awareness to is our information and help both sufficient and current is useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I generally look at works we already have by them. Some authors have been releasing things under the GFDL, so I use {{GFDL}} for that person. Otherwise if they're explicitly releasing copyright, I use {{PD-release}}. If we have no works by them, and probably never will, {{copyright author}}. Things get funny with public office so I take those on a case-by-case, but {{PD-USGov}} is only for federal US government, and so on. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
For your specific cases: Noni releases works under the creative commons 3 unported license, so {{Cc-by-3.0}} is appropriate; the one work by Nemitz we have is under the Free Art License, so I would tag him with {{FAL}}; and the last fellow released some of his work under the GFDL so {{GFDL}}. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your point of view :) I will keep other updates in mind as well, like billinghurst mentioned. Marjoleinkl (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Index:A Hundred Years Of Bengali Press.pdf[edit]

Whose the second author listed? Trying to get dates and nothing came up in a Google Search. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It's "H.W.B. Moreno." I'm seeing other book results come of for him in a Google Search. He appears to have lived in Calcutta during the early 20th century. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Library of Congress shows birth year to be 1875. WorldCat, LOC, etc. do not show expanded name. Still looking... Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
He's still publishing in 1932, is referred to with the title "Dr", and had an infant son die in 1909. Other than that, I got nothing. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Henry William Bunn Moreno Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Nice get. To note that genealogical resources support all the above statements, and also do not give a death date. I do find a nice 1920 appeal court case about divorce, and the death of his wife in 1927. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Applying 1875+70 = 1945, but 1875+90 = 1965 which is getting tight for this being out of copyright outside the US. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Is it possible to localise the file? We know it's PD-US at any rate. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Moreno's year of death is unknown to historians of literature. See this page about 1875 births in the History of Indian Literature, Volume 1 (Sahitya Akademi, New Delhi, 2000). There is no assurance that he died before 1957, so the work's PD-India status cannot be confirmed. Better to host locally. Hrishikes (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg moved locally please update file description and work out expiry for move to Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst, @ShakespeareFan00:Calcutta Municipal Gazette for 1934 states "Dr. H. W. B. Moreno, a prominent member of the AngloIndian community in Calcutta, died in the Medical College Hospital on the morning of the 4th July at the age of 59..." (p. 250). Page 231 is dated "30th June, 1934", confirming the year 1934. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
A point to note: The primary author, P. N. Bose was not the geologist Pramatha Nath Bose. There were three people named P. N. Bose at that time: (1) Pramatha Nath Bose, geologist with Geological Survey of India, B.Sc. degree, VIAF 41833661, (2) Phanindra Nath Bose, professor of history at Visvabharati University, M.A. degree, VIAF 75440271, (3) Phanindra Nath Bose, painter-cum-sculptor of international repute, vide this page and Samsad Bangali Charitabhidhan, the Bengali biographical dictionary. As per obituary of No. 2, published in the magazine Prabasi, Vol. 32, 1932, page 145, the book on Bengali Press was written by him. Hrishikes (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay , amended, and added the Other P.N Bose.. here Author:Phanindra Nath Bose Can you expand and cleanup?.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation: merge these?[edit]

Thoughts on whether these are the same or different in terms of disambiguation

I know that we have merged certain variations of "(The|A)? Word ..." see Cry, or another including plurals Fan

Our page Help:Disambiguation doesn't cover such, and it is probably a time we can work through that guidance. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support. I see no reason not to merge these pages. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

While on the matter[edit]

Something like A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature/Butler, Samuel which is a pretty old page.

Do we really wish to disambiguate to that level? (especially as it can be captured on a table of contents). Would something like that belong at a collective "Butler, Samuel" or "Samuel Butler"? Noting that we could be building a for our backs as with that approach as we start to build biographical works are we just making lots of names to add, for example the number of John Smiths in the Alumni Oxonienses will be non-trivial. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Noting that we already determined that works about author's belong on Author pages rather than being separately listed in main namespace (disambiguations/versions). Also noting that we have talked about persons in Portal: nsamepsace. Though that will never cover all circumstances, thoguh they will generally all be subpages of a work. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
If I may, can someone point to the conversation where this has been "already determined" so I can think through this? Also, what was the primary concern within that conversation with regard to creating redirects/versions pages for titles with people's names? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I do not think that disambiguation at this level is useful at all. I would just use the work's TOC for disambiguation, or if they are entries in an anthology, I would use a top-level disambig page between those entries and any other pages with the same title. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Edmund Clarence Stedman is an author. "Edmund Clarence Stedman" is also the title of a poem by Florence Earle Coates with two versions hosted here. A letter from Stedman to Coates—(also hosted here)—references and wikilinks to the poem (see text "sonnet"). It is my opinion that it would be (and was) quite useful to have a versions page entitled "Edmund Clarence Stedman" to link to from the letter as opposed to redirecting to an anchor at Stedman's author page. Also note "Robert Browning", which in my opinion is also useful. Perhaps make "Edmund Clarence Stedman (Coates)" a versions page? as is Robert Browning (Coates). Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Edmund Clarence Stedman should be a versions page listing versions of the poem called "Edmund Clarence Stedman" by Coates. If another different work called "Edmund Clarence Stedman" is added (or if there is a reasonable argument to be made that the letter is entitled "Edmund Clarence Stedman") then Edmund Clarence Stedman should be a disambig page linking to the new work and also to Edmund Clarence Stedman (Coates) which would become the new versions page for Coates' poem.
In either case: Edmund Clarence Stedman can link to Author:Edmund Clarence Stedman, either in the notes or related_author fields, or (if appropriate) in a "See also" section below. The letter of course should link to the poem's version page. By no means should Edmund Clarence Stedman point to an anchor in Author space. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: did you think these were separate works? These are clearly versions of a single work; your comment "community position is that these works are added on the target author's pages rather than separately disambiguated" suggests that you misunderstood the nature of this work, as it is my understanding that community position is precisely the opposite. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Didache: opinions on what this has morphed to[edit]

Didache originally a disambiguation page, though has morphed over time. It was not a traditional disambig page, as it was about a subject, which is more related to our Portal: namespace. I have just converted it to a {{translations}}, though it may be better to be in portal: ns, or we split to a disambig page, and a translations page. Stepping back through the history is a little informative (especially as I have cut out a little information. Thanks (the things we stumble upn when working on disambig page maintenance! — billinghurst sDrewth 07:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to the "works about" section? It is my understanding that "works about" shouldn't be listed on a translations page. So, there should be a translations page for the Didache work itself, and if desired a Portal page listing works about the Didache, and if there are other works on WS called "Didache" (which there don't appear to be) then a separate disambig page would be required. (On the other hand, if we want to begin to allow "works about" sections on versions/translations pages, I would support this change.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, the conversation is the morphing from where it started to where it ended. Part "translations" but also with works about, then the sections that I rem'd. I was after an open conversation about where we are taking things (diambig/versions/translations/portal), rather than imposing my own point of view while on a maintenance tramp. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Understood. My position is that the current "way we do things" is to have a translations page for only the translations, and a portal page for the "works about", and the references and external links on the Talk page of the translations page; but my position is also that having a "works about" section on a versions/translations page (such as Didache has currently) should also be acceptable. It should never have been a general disambig page (i.e. as opposed to a translations page), and regardless of the presence or absence of a portal page a translations page in mainspace is a must. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Author pages with no gender[edit]

No gender value "Authors" like Author:Annie Roe Carr and the other Stratemeyer Syndicate pseudonyms need to have an option to be removed from Category:Author pages with no gender. I have added gender: no value at d: which we should interpret in such a way as to remove them from this tracking category. Similarly, Author:Pseudo-Clement has gender: unknown since we can't really establish it and there's no point leaving this author in a tracking category that it can never leave. (Note that these are the only two special values in Wikidata.) Thoughts? Can anyone implement this? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up It seems that Author:Victor Appleton is not in the tracking category by virtue of having no value at d:Q3557128 but the entry above is still in there. Maybe it's just waiting in the job queue? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure why we would want to remove them from the category. It is to show "author pages with no gender", under your plan they won't show. Why would we want that? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I can see the benefit of having a category listing essentially "authors who have a gender which has not yet been entered in the system". However, I feel that Category:Author pages with no gender would also be a correct categorization for authors with unknown or null gender. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I was removing them from a tracking category: the problem is that no gender has been specified, not that there is an author but that author has no gender. If you want the behavior to change, then we can make it so that there are categories for authors on d: who have no value and unknown but we should also have the tracking category for authors which have no value at all set on our sister project. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The meaning of hosting[edit]

In view of the latest discussion on my talk page with User:Koavf, can someone please explain the scope of the term hosting as it pertains to Wikisource? Does it only include transcluded works or does it cover the transcription projects too? Hrishikes (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: I have no idea why Koavf is going about that task, and in that way. To me it seems unwarranted, lacking in value, and not in line with current practice in use of the {{populate}} tag. If that was a task that was going to be undertaken on a broad scale, I would have hoped that it would have been discussed with the community, not undertaken unilaterally. Generally we have only been adding that tag to a +Works+ section when it has been empty of lists, not when we do not have works transcribed and readable. It is a generally an ugly tag. I am not even sure why we are even trying to come up and argue about the literalist definition of hosting. I say let the current practice and convention guide us, and where someone wants to undertake a good idea maybe float it past the rest of us. If someone is bored, then we have Wikisource:Maintenance and there is usually a stream of valuable maintenance tasks that would add value. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I was working on de-populating the {{populate}} category by creating transcription projects for all the authors I can find. Do you mean to say that I should instead be transcribing the front matter, transcluding that, and then moving on? Seems like all that will do is clutter up the main name space. (Personally I've been considering "has transcription project" to be functionally equivalent to "has a work on wikisource and therefore should not have this tag.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mukkakukaku:Personal opinion, I much prefer what you are doing, especially if we are adding {{ext scan link}} or where we have works so adding {{small scan link}}. Way better! IMNSHO. So, no, I don't think that we should create front pages and then no content. We have far too many pages of that sort of incomplete crap. I believe that we have been trying to get away from such a process, it is so misleading. It is not much different from ugly copy and pastes of texts with ugly OCR errors. No one wants to wade through that garbage, we may as well just link to the pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I saw several author pages which had no works, so I tagged them with {{no works}}. Makes sense to me. The template reads "There are no works on Wikisource by this author." so why was it removed from Author:Joseph Gregory Martin—a page which has no works here? Isn't this a classic example of a page that should have this banner? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe that the template is and has been called {{populate}}, prior to that it was "empty", where the "no works" redirect was someone's later creation. If I recall correctly, the discussion is that we can encourage people to add works to the page, it did not mean that we have to have the works onsite, though that is obviously our preference. To note that author pages here can link to full text works at any sites/domains, with Wikilivres being our prime example, though we have {{ext scan link}} for Google Books and IA as appropriate. On the page that you indicate there are clearly works listed, rather than an empty section, and it hasn't been the practice to add the template. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Then I suppose you now have an idea of why I added that, no? If the template shouldn't be used for its obvious purpose, then change the text and add some usage notes at the documentation--don't act faux-shocked at why someone would add a template that says "Wikisource has no works by this author" on pages where we have no works by this author. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Amended the text to "There are no works listed on Wikisource for this author." and hopefully that better clarifies the situation. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Wehrmachtbericht question[edit]

I am new to Wikisource and I have a question regarding the Wehrmachtbericht. Unsure where to post this question (see also Wikisource_talk:What_Wikisource_includes#Wehrmachtbericht_references). Please allow me to repeat the question here. I was wondering if it is legitimate to place the translations of the Wehrmachtbericht on Wikisource? Wehrmachtbericht was the daily Oberkommando der Wehrmacht mass-media communiqué and a key component of Nazi propaganda during World War II. As said, the Wehrmachtbericht is propaganda with a definite historical revisionist or denialist effect. Nevertheless, its wording is public domain, just like Adolf Hitler's Address to the Reichstag (4 May 1941). I want to avoid infringing any policies here so I am asking beforehand. Thanks in advance for any feedback and thoughts. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The best place for this kind of discussion is WS:Copyright discussions. Translations of the Wehrmachtbericht are welcome provided that both the original and the translation are in the public domain in the United States. Can you confirm that this is the case? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
My question specifically is centered around the question does Wikisource allow me to put the Wehrmachtbericht text on Wikisource even though it is considered propaganda. Are there guidelines which prohibit information to be placed on Wikisource which are propaganda. I verify again if the original German text is public domain. I would be providing the English translation. Example below
Date Original German Wehrmachtbericht wording Direct English translation
10 February 1945
Der mit dem Ritterkreuz zum Eisernen Kreuz ausgezeichente Hauptmann Rath schoß in der Nacht zum 8. Februar sechs feindliche Flugzeuge ab. The recipient of the Knight's Cross to the Iron Cross Captain Rath shot down six enemy aircraft in the night to 8 February.
Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Propaganda is welcome on Wikisource provided it is free content. We can host your own translation in the Translations namespace, see WS:Translations#Wikisource original translations. However, note that a scan-supported copy of the original must be also uploaded to German Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Or the Multilingual Wikisource, in case the German Wikisource won't take it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you please point me to an example of how this Multilingual Wikisource works? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
It is the same as other Wikisources, and located at ; it's used for documents that don't belong on any particular-language Wikisource. You could post it at mul:Wehrmachtbericht (multilingual) if it is forbidden to post it at de:Wehrmachtbericht (German). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is this author disambiguated?[edit]

Minor in the greater scheme of things, but I'm now curious why Author:Elizabeth Robins (1862-1952) is not at Author:Elizabeth Robins. As can be seen, the author name without the years is a redlink. The only authors we have with similar names are Author:Elizabeth Robins Pennell and Author:Elizabeth Robinson. All of the links to Author:Elizabeth Robins appear to be for Elizabeth Robins (1862-1952) (I repointed some.) Even the Wikipedia article is just at "Elizabeth Robins" (no years.)

I didn't want to move Elizabeth Robins (1862-1952) to Elizabeth Robins if there was something I just wasn't seeing. Is the similarity to Elizabeth Robins Pennell too great, and should Author:Elizabeth Robins be a disambiguation page instead? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth Robins Pennell was named Elizabeth Robins until she married Joseph Pennell. She had already published books under her unmarried name prior to that marriage. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
So... we should have a disambig page there? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually she was married in 1884, the same year she published her first book. I'm not sure if it had her maiden or married name on it though, since we don't seem to have scans. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Names used of married women has always been an interesting choice on which way to go, and whether to include the maiden surname into a blended name. I have always tended to do more than less, as I have found that these women writers seemed always to write in some forum (before and after marriage), and there name usage is changeable or pseudonymous. So for someone like Elizabeth Robins Pennell, I would have created a redirect from Elizabeth Robins (adding a DEFAULTSORT and a Category:Authors-Ro). Then when faced with the current situation I would have disambiguated. So with the current situation I think it is better to disambiguate with pointers. It is definitely accurate.

Some views from my experience. If someone disambiguates prior to necessity, we can always add a redirect from the plain and know that the ultimate target will be good forever. Of course some names are next to never likely to have to be disambiguated, so we can move them with a redirect. Even then we won't always get it right. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I think either way is fine; in this case I have created the disambig. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
as we build disambigs, there will be trial and error. as long as the links to WP and wikidata work, it should be fine. although you could move the author page as well (without the dates). the viaf for Elizabeth Robins Pennell should be a guide. maybe we need to think about a wikidata generated author template? Slowking4RAN's revenge 18:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikisource meeting in January?[edit]

(As mentioned on wikisource-l yesterday.) Is anyone interested in getting together on Google Hangouts sometime at the end of January to talk about Wikisource stuff? There will be things to report back about from the MediaWiki Dev Summit, and maybe we could talk about how to best proceed with the Wikisource items on the Wishlist survey? (Or anything else, of course!) There's a schedule-proposer thing here: to try to get an idea of what time/day would be best. —Sam Wilson 07:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool. What's the technical requirements other than having an internet connection? (Have never used Ggl Hangouts before....) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mukkakukaku: Not much I think; all modern browsers should work. Hm, actually, it sounds like non-Chrome users have to install a browser plugin. You'll need a Google account of course — which is not a very "free and open" thing, but still I think it's worth trying this experiment :-) . (And sorry for the slow response by the way.)

It's looking like Saturday 28th Jan at 1400UTC is the most widely convenient time. Will add a confirmation here in a couple of days though. Sam Wilson 03:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I've created meta:Wikisource Community User Group/January 2017 Hangout with details. Sam Wilson 03:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This month's featured text of the main page, and proofread of the month[edit]

Just trying to clarify a minor confusion. Are the two the same? — Ineuw talk 14:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope. The featured text is a completed work that we consider to be "the best" (kind of like Wikipedia's featured articles), plus that we also consider to be exemplary or important or whatever. Those articles are nominated on WS:Featured text candidates, then argued for/against, cleaned up if necessary (eg. inconsistent formatting), and so on.
Proofread of the month is a monthly collaboration to proofread, validate, and transclude new works. It's usually themed -- so one month we'll do poetry, another month may focus on a particular topic (eg travelogues, dictionaries, history, etc), another month may feature women authors, and so on. You can find those at WS:POTM.
So featured texts showcase finished work, PotM invites collaboration. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
+1. @Ineuw: If you look at the Main Page, this month's Featured text is Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm, and if you look at that work's index page, you'll see that it has been completely validated.
But the current PotM is either A Treatise on Soap Making or Church Seats and Kneeling Boards (depending on which listing you go by), but neither work has been fully proofread or validated.
FT shows what we've accomplished, whereas PotM is a work in progress. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks all for clearing it up. Does all our POTM works related to NARA? This is what got me really confused. — Ineuw talk 18:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I want to say 'no' but I don't know what NARA is.... --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikisource:WikiProject NARA no, user:dominic has moved on. they have their own citizen dashboard transcription project. we do need some project organizations to want to get and use mainpage space. Slowking4RAN's revenge 20:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
No, they are not the same, but they are both listed under "Collaborations" because both involve the coordination of many individuals for each project. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
we should take NARA out of rotation since that was an active project years ago, and all the tasks are stale. Slowking4RAN's revenge 21:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
My thanks to everyone. Everything is clear. — Ineuw talk 23:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-02[edit]

19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding portals[edit]

I recently added some links to pages here from True Stories of Girl Heroines to wikipedia. In the process, and going over the portal guidelines, I noticed that there seem to be perhaps quite a few topics here which might reasonably qualify for portals which don't have one. The w:Church of England comes to mind, as does w:Henry VIII. Particularly given the number of entries in the British DNB and other reference works which we have and might have dealing with the same topics, some of these perhaps specific small portals might be useful, particularly for links to be used in wikipedia articles. For others, like w:Jane Lane, Lady Fisher, who so far as I can see is maybe the topic of only two pieces here, maybe not so much. Is there any clear indication as to exactly what sort of minimum standards should be generally observed here? John Carter (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The guidelines are at Help:Portals#When to create a new portal. Specifically:
  • Portal:Church of England exists and has for some time
  • Author:Henry VIII does not need a portal because you can list relevant works under Works about. The same goes for any other author.
  • You (or anyone else) can create a portal for Jane Lane if you believe there are enough works to be indexed—unless she is an author in her own right, in which case an Author page should be created instead.
Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. FWIW, I actually searched for the portals first, and didn't find them, but thanks for the links. And I saw the relevant text on Help:Portals, indicating "However, at least having the number of works in the high single figures, if not double figures, is recommended." I'm guessing that means, maybe, six or seven sources is preferred? And, maybe, this might be the most important follow-up question. Is there any indicator when to opt for "portal" or "author" pages when a subject is both a writer and written about? Henry VIII, who is probably more notable and more written about as a subject of works written by others than a writer himself, might be a good case here. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd say yes, six or seven, but it doesn't really matter. If you think it's high single figures, and are willing to the bother of creating a portal, go for it. The indicator of Portal vs. Author is incredibly simple: if any works by that person exist at all, they go in Author space; otherwise they go in Portal space. This is true even if the person's authorship of a work is disputed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Would it be easier to instead of creating portals create categories named after biographies of individuals which could then be added to some other category? We have at present two biographies of Abercius of Hierapolis here, and I think it would be a lot more functional to just create a category for him or anyone like him to be added to other categories than to create a portal of maybe just two entries, or turn a portal into an endless document with hundreds or thousands of entries. John Carter (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

We have frowned on the creation of people-based categories in the past, for a multitude of reasons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
^^^what he said. For so many of our people subjects, a portal or a category will have very limited number of entries, and difficult to navigate at any level. So yes, if we are having a significant number of entries then we can have a portal or a category, so that becomes prominent people. And no, if it is one or tow or three to a category/portal. I believe that we said that search was our best friend, though I don't know. Data on searches undertaken would be interesting, if there are any. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

PhD theses from Edinburgh University[edit]

Hi, the digital curator at the University of Edinburgh has asked if it would be appropriate for out-of-copyright digitised PhD theses to be included on Wikisource? The university has been digitising its collection of PhD theses for the last few months and is now at a stage where it can consider uploading a test case to Wikisource: a medical thesis by British physician & geologist Thomas James Jehu. Just looking to establish if this project is something we can go ahead with in terms of Wikisource's project scope. NB: We also have a number of Open Books we could look to import. Many thanks, Stinglehammer (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Are these thesis published in other journals? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Aside, I would encourage you to lobby for "open access" publication to be an option for recent thesis authors, once University formalities have been completed obviously.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The relevant issues are discussed at Wikisource:What Wikisource includes. Since PhD theses will have been reviewed and approved by a committee at the University, I would consider them suitable for inclusion, provided that there are no copyright concerns. The open books, I am unsure of, as they would normally need to have undergone some sort of peer review and publication. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The open books are a collection of works the library has scanned. Many of them are clearly in scope, and the rest of the English language works are old stuff that should be in scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support @Stinglehammer: Peer-reviewed works that are in the public domain or are freely-licensed are within scope. There are of course some mechanics to discuss.

    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Re open books, are they static to a point of time? Are they approved by experts in a way analogous to peer-review? If they are not static, or they are not peer-reviewed then here may not be the most appropriate place. I am wondering whether we should be including our colleagues at English Wikibooks to see where they fit best. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

    Addendum Looking at the Open Books, some of those seem to be analogous to us as historic documents of notable people, so not needing the peer-review component as they have a notability aspect. Where that is the case, then they get my Symbol support vote.svg Support too. We may have to pick some out, or expand this conversation a little. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Certainly the theses seem in scope for Wikisource, and the few Open Books I've looked at (at random) would, as Billinghurst says above, be fine. Perhaps, if there are materials that are not a good fit for Wikisource, they could be added to Wikiversity? They'd be good candidates for raw research material there. —Sam Wilson 01:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Request: Update to Special:Import wikis[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: will lodge a phab ticket
Background: Administrators can import pages from other wikis where those wikis are predefined in our configuration. To have a configuration change we need to demonstrate a consensus at our wiki, and submit a phabricator request. Both these below requests to update should be non-controversial, and are administrative at best.


I wish to import the graph templates from Mediawikiwiki and then continue maintain them as updates happens there. At the moment we have to manual copy them over. It is a PITA and this can be resolved by addition of the wiki to our configuration, so I propose that

  1. mw: is added to the list of source wikis available for English Wikisource

Update Oldwikisource

We had a recent issue where we could not import Oldwikisource pages as the interwiki connection was broken due to a configuration matter. This has been resolved, however a more robust solution is to have the configuration amended to utilise the term "mul" in the source list, rather than "oldwikisource". Accordingly I propose that

  1. the source list for wiki add "mul" and remove "oldwikisource"

Here endeth the request. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


Index:Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management.djvu[edit]

Does anyone want to help out on this? I estimated about 500-600 remaining pages, which is just within the reach of getting finished by the end of April if enough people pitch in ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Is this correct? —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
This appears to have been a pragmatic addition by another contributor. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: Is it acceptable? —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure, I won't object if you want to be text faithful. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-03[edit]

23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Refactoring dates in the author template[edit]

(This is related to a discussion above, but I thought I'd raise it here too, as this is more general.)

I'd like to propose replacing the date-handling bits of {{author}} with a new Lua module, Module:Author. This would be the date-display code and the categorisation code that's currently done in {{author/year}} (which could then be deprecated). At the same time, we can start pulling in data from Wikidata when possible and when it's not supplied locally with the birthyear and deathyear parameters.

I've started writing the code and documenting it at Module:Author/doc. The date-display stuff is pretty straight forward, but the categories are more complicated. At the moment the module is categorizing into the following categories:

  1. In all cases (where applicable):
  2. Where manual birthdates are supplied

I've started writing tests; see Module talk:Author/testcases. Not all are passing at the moment, and not all required code paths are present yet. There's also the dates in the microformat to be done. (I'm working on all these.)

I'd love anyone's feedback about this idea! :-) Thanks. Sam Wilson 06:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How will we deal with disambiguated author pages where the page title includes birth and death dates? That is, there is a possibility that we will have set up a pagename including dates which then change based on Wikidata. How would we track and account for this? --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Good point. We can parse the dates out of the page title and check them against the Wikidata values. If they don't match, we can add the page to a maintenance category, for manual follow-up. Do you think that'd work? If they're in the format like Author:John Newton (1725-1807) then it'll be fine. Sam Wilson 21:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
yes, that’s good. include a manual input override. include a "edit on wikidata" button, to lead people to fix there. need to think about non-standard date formats and OS vs. NS. Slowking4RAN's revenge 21:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a whole project within WD to look at "in-wiki/local" editing. Maybe we can add some pertinent commentary there, especially about pushing data from our templates. To also note that there is javascript tool available with which I have been playing, and can set up for others if they so wish. Not perfect, but adds something. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
That will be super brilliant when it happens! And people at the Dev Summit last week were talking about also being able to show Wikidata changes in the local history of a page, which'd help too. Sam Wilson 07:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
agreed - the ticket seems to be about infoboxes, maybe some input about author / creator templates would be good there. Slowking4RAN's revenge 17:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I've added a function to categorise disambig'd authors into Category:Authors with title-date mismatches where the title dates don't match Wikidata. Sam Wilson 08:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I've been doing a bit more on this. If anyone's got a chance could you have a look at Module talk:Author/testcases and see what tests are missing? Both for dates as supplied in the {{author}} template and those retrieved from Wikidata. Thanks! Sam Wilson 02:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The Module:Author dates method is ready to deploy to the author template. Is it okay if I go ahead with this? Does anyone have any other testcases that should be investigated? Sam Wilson 03:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead with this. I'll be on hand to fix anything up that goes awry! Ping me if you notice anything. :) Sam Wilson 00:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@Samwilson: Do you realize that this is adding hundreds of articles to Category:Pages_with_script_errors in instances where the author name has some disambiguation--e.g. Author:John_Newton_(1725-1807) or Author:Eusebius (Pope)? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@Samwilson: And evidently no last name, e.g. Author:Hippocrates. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry! Yes, I'm fixing this right now. I thought I had tested all permutations of that, but in fact I failed. Sam Wilson 06:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, sorted those bugs out. What other problems are there? (I'm going through a random sampling of Author pages now.) Note that Category:Authors with birth dates differing from Wikidata and Category:Authors with death dates differing from Wikidata are getting rather a lot in them too! Sam Wilson 06:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Don't rush too fast Samwilson, let us bring the community along at a reasonable rate, supported and informed. We are better to hasten slowly with implementation than forcing changes. There is no absolute requirement to change templates to not show these fields as I presume that empty parameters will populate from WD. At this point, I feel that we are better to label them to be left empty, and to notify that we are using WD, rather than obliterate from our preloaded templates. We have numbers of authors not in WD where we have dates of life, and to not have that data available today to then create or match later at WD is not helpful. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, sorry!! I realise I was rather getting carried away. Thanks for reverting. I think it's okay to remove dates from individual authors though, where the data's already in WD though. I've been trying to investigate ones where there are differences especially. I shall try to be more communicative and slower! :) Sam Wilson 04:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
While I don't personally have an issue removing date parameters, I do know that we haven't discussed that with the broad community as a specific proposal. My experience with removing other parameters from author and authority control templates is that the community wants reassurance and clarity that problems are resolved prior to such actions. Let us see how the module works and its resilience, prior to the next step. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, is this work why Category:Living authors isn't auto-populating anymore? For example, Author:Andrew Beniuk should be in there, but he's not. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, good point. This is a tricky one. We were assuming that anyone with a birthyear but no deathyear was therefore living, but now with Wikidata we have the ability to explicitly mark 'date of death' as 'no value', which means someone is still alive (as opposed to 'unknown', which means they're known to be dead but not when they died). So I'm not sure what to do: we already have Category:Authors with missing death dates, which used to only apply if both dates were missing, but now can apply where we have an unknown death date. The ultimate solution is to update the data in Wikidata, but apart from that, what is the best option here? Sam Wilson 04:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I can see now that I've got it backwards. We should assume that people without death dates are living, unless their birth dates are >130 years ago, and for the false positives we can give them "date of death = unknown" at Wikidata. That makes more sense doesn't it? Sorry I got it wrong; I'll fix it up now. Sam Wilson 04:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Another thought on this: for authors with unknown dates, I have sometimes added dates = fl. YYYY for when they were active. I just noticed that Wikidata has a property floruit (P1317) ; is this also used or usable in the new module? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: yes definitely, good idea. Can you point me to a Wikidata item using this? One that's unlikely to be given more solid birth and death dates, that I can add to the testcases. I'd say that floruit should be displayed on its own when there are unknown birth and death dates, or as e.g. (1800 – aft. 1850) when there's a birth date and f. 1850 (and similar if there's only a floruit and death date). Does that sound okay? Sam Wilson 00:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I recently created Author:Mrs. Dunbo (d:Q28585286) with no dates except for the floruit field. I think your ideas for how to display when there is a floruit date and only one birth or death date will work very well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Possible bot[edit]

Might there be any interest in maybe setting up some sort of bot which could, perhaps, on the talk page of a given portal, indicate which works mentioned in that portal have been scanned for proofreading, and maybe how far along in proofreading they have gotten? John Carter (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

It might be able to give some idea, but there are many Portals where authors are listed instead of duplicating the list of relevant works, even if not all of that author's works are relevant to the given Portal. And for some works, like the EB1911, that will be difficult to judge, since only a portion of the work might relate to the particular portal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
You mean like adding a link along the lines of this one? Not much of a justification for a bot. unsigned comment by (talk) .
I wasn't thinking of anything along the lines the first-time IP editor indicated, and find the conclusion rather remarkable, but, rather, more along the lines of a bot which might generate something which looks in some way, allowing for all the variations, something along the lines of wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Popular pages, possibly with some sort of accomodating changes like my recent verifying of The Complete Works of Lyof N. Tolstoï/How to Read the Gospels. The relevant criteria for us might be number of page views, number of pages involved, and current development stage, maybe for the latter ranking them based on the existing index proofreading scheme. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting idea @John Carter:. Beyond author pages, we are pretty horrid about presenting works to our public, completed or pending. We sort of have portals, though they are curatorial in nature, and based on what we think is the subject. [Truth be told, we mostly enjoy transcribing and are not fantastic on administrivia. Personally I am a shocker about working out the subject matter.] As has been mentioned for Special:IndexPages we can add keywords/phrases/title and display related books based on that, example at Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Progress. That would take the addition of keywords/phrases to the Index: files, and then adding something like {{Special:IndexPages|key=(phrase)}} to a section on the pages or the talk page (IF PEOPLE LOOK THERE). I take your conversation as telling us that we should be doing better, and in that you are correct, and most look up, then go back to their comfort zone of transcribing. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Believe me, I understand. I could myself try to do a lot more in this regard myself, and may well do so when I get a bit better grasp of how to do things here. Unfortunately, I still don't have any ability at making index pages, which I kind of hate, because some recent reviews of other encyclopedias have said wikipedia:Louis de La Vallée-Poussin's articles on Buddhism in the old Hastings Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics have been said in reviews of more recent reference works to be the best works on their topics ever written, and, fumbingly try as I might, I've still not really had any success in trying to add those volumes here. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
that’s very good - i would support an agenda / action plan to refresh Main Page, Portals, Projects to make more useful. a bot could be a part of maintaining that. or wikidata maintenance list updated by bot. (i.e. [16]) using [17] minimizing impact on old transcription work flows would be critical for community acceptance. Slowking4RAN's revenge 16:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps a "portal expansion drive" could be a weekly or monthly collaboration project. We could rotate through some of the portals that have not seen much attention for a while, or even initiate portals for subjects we are still missing? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Another good use for a bot along these lines: there are a lot of portals which have an equivalent category; a lot of the items in such categories could easily be automatically added to the relevant portals. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Given the recent success over at wikipedia in "drives" headed by w:User:Rosiestep and w:User talk:Dr. Blofeld, both of whom I am more or less in awe of for the success they've had in their collaborative efforts, I think there may well be merit in maybe including in such a bot or a similar bot a search for recent hits at portals and author pages to determine the number of views of each for the purpose of seeing what is likely to get the most input for such "portal/author improvement" drives as suggested above. The reference work bot might then be used to see which reference works have articles on the topics which may not have yet been addressed, which might then be included in the portal improvement. Particularly for wikipedia editors, maybe finding which portal/author pages have shorter "entries" in collective works which could be listed by bot for expansion might help bring in some more wikipedia editors more used to working on shorter "projects" than proofreadings of full books, although maybe the "portal improvement" effort might be maybe optimally chosen to relate to the following months "Proofread of the Month" to maybe get a few more such newer editors involved in that effort as well. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
One idea is to use Wikidata: I guess all portals have a Wikidata item, and so we can find out their main topic, and then find all editions that have that as their main subject (non-fiction) or genre (fiction), and list them all on the portal? But would this leave us with weird things? For example, we don't have a Portal:Novels in which Pride and Prejudice would go (let alone Portal:Satire). And anyway lots of things don't have subjects or genres at Wikidata. :-( I've played around with a script to make Portal:Penguin Classics, which seems to work okay, but that's a different sort of portal (and should probably be renamed Portal:Penguin Classics works or something). Sam Wilson 06:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
that’s very good. another step would be a wikidata list query that updates by bot. don;t know how community feels about semi-automatic versus automatic. we can use the lists to provide input for content drives such as women in red. lots of metadata to deconflict / get linked. Slowking4RAN's revenge 14:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If we were to request a bot be created roughly along the lines of the Popular Pages bot linked to above, what sort of specific details would we want? I might include name of portal or category item linked to, number of hits (per month?) to same, individual pages included in those portals or categories which number of hits, number of pages per pagescan in the individual works, number of problematic pages in the transcluded text, and, maybe, level of development past the current proofread level of the pages transcluded into an individual work and/or of the broader work whose index is linked to. If the last isn't really clear, indicating the number of pages at non-proofread, proofread or verified level, not differentiating in the bot results between the two higher levels, for a work still at not-proofread level and that sort of thing. John Carter (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I've left a request at wikipedia:Wikipedia:Bot requests regarding the above proposed bot. I hope to here something in response shortly. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thoreau turns 200[edit]

I've mentioned in a few places this July will mark the 200th birthday of Author:Henry David Thoreau, who is one of the greatest 19th-century American writers. It would be wonderful if our community could celebrate that in a big way.

We already have a PotM planned (his Maine Woods) that month, so that's something. It also would be nice to feature one or more of his works that month (more on rotation would be better than just one), however we have almost none of his works. Walden seems to be the only complete volume, and currently it is unsourced.

I've set up several transcription projects linked from his Author page. I'm working on his "Wild Apples" essay, and am halfway through Cape Cod, but perhaps there are other editors here interested in working through some of the other volumes, or in validating pages.

Thoreau's prose is easily managed, with little formatting other than italics and archaic hyphenation. He seldom uses footnotes, although some of his editors do. He does occasionally quote Greek, but we have several members who can help with that.

There are also several works for which I or another editor have linked to clean copies at IA, but have not yet uploaded to Commons or established an Index page.

I've no idea how many people would be interested, but this seems like an opportunity for many community members to work together and showcase our effort come July. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I see he has an "Index of poems" here, but few or no poems linked to any indexed source. If someone could recommend a comprehensive text (hopefully without too many notes or footnotes) of his poems from IA, I would be willing to work on it. I am not well versed enough in Thoreau's works to critically choose one myself (if one exists... it looks as though many if not most of his poetic works are within essays, etc.). Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I could work on transcluding poem extracts from essays once transcription of indexes are completed (or even in process)—linking the unindexed poems to their sources... Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, all of his poetry occurs within his essays and other writings. But sometimes he quotes the poetry of others, so you're not guaranteed that a poem within his writings is one of his. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Good point. I'll look into it further. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Index:Bukvar staroslovenskoga jezika glagolskimi pismeni za čitanje crkvenih knjig.djvu[edit]

This is a non-english work which the uploader is translating. I've suggested they moved it to the Multilingual Wikisource ( it's an obscure dialect), but wondered if other more experienced contributors could also provide the uploader with advice. ( They suggested the Croatian Wikisource, but expressed concerns about the markup being different.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

If they are translating into English utilising the Page: namespace, then the work belongs here. We would transclude it to our Translation: namespace. Pretty sure that this is covered at Wikisource:Translationbillinghurst sDrewth 06:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Further to this, you are correct that an original-language transcription should be present in the appropriate-language WS as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


A simple consultation. Should I continue converting this to use the sidenotes, which on a number of pages are currently not quite fully working, or revert back to the approach of using footnotes?

I'd also like a decision on whether to use the long s as I have been (faithful to text), or substitute a modern s for reader ease. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikisource:Style guide allows the use of {{long s}} in the Page: ns, though noting that it displays normal s when transcluded. Not sure that it is a work that would be any more special than that. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
EncycloPetey used hard-coded, visible-in-mainspace, Unicode long-s in next month's FT, The Clandestine Marriage. You appear to have done this so far. Considering it is a facsimile of the first edition from the 1600s, I would favour continuing with this approach. Interestingly, however, {{blackletter}} does not appear to support long s, meaning the page headers are incorrectly displayed. Not sure what you could do about that... BethNaught (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
{{long s}} also doesn't work nicely with {{hws}}{{hwe}} pairs, which is why I was considering hardcoding.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

your style solution seem ok to me. i’ve kinda given up on easy to use sidenotes. i would note a lot of other transcription projects don’t even try. unclear benefit to reader, of sidenote, when content is there in a different place. it is vestigial marginalia Slowking4RAN's revenge 14:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@BethNaught: {{blackletter}} does some glyph-replacement by default; you can override this with mode=1 as follows: s = s and ſ = ſ.
OK let's make this simple.
Hardcode {{ls}} as the Unicode Character? (Yes/No)
Hardcode {{rr}} as the Unicode Character? (Yes/No)
Use footnotes as opposed to sidenotes? (Yes/No)

I'm not going to reformat anymore pages until there is a clear consensus and someone else puts a style guide on the Index talk, I don't want to be changing back and forth.

Let's give it 7 days for someone (other than me) to write the style notes? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The preface to the work in question shows that "no pains have been spared. In all those matters of orthography, grammar, rough or quaint expression, typographical peculiarity, &c., above referred to, absolute reproduction has been the one aim." Because of this, I would encourage this attitude in the WS transcription as well, and would therefore suggest hard-coding the characters. That being said, if the sidenotes don't work, it's okay for them to be footnotes. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Further to this, I'm pretty sure that ꝛ is only used once in the Preface, and subsequently only in the non-transcluded page headers, so it may not be worth changing. And finally, if you hard-code it we can use autowikibrowser to change it afterwards if desired. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  1. While {{long s}} and {{ls}} both render as s in the edit screen and as ſ in the mainspace, {{s}} is always rendered as as ſ regardless of where it is rendered.

    We also have {{s|2}} (ʃ), {{ss}} (ſſ), {{ss|2}} (ʃʃ), {{ss|3}} (ß), and {{ss|4}} (ʃß).  These five always render as stated, regardless of where they are rendered.

  2. I definitely think it wise to use the exact typography found in the text being transcribed, meaning always using the long-s (etc.) when the text being transcribed uses the long-s (etc.) and using the short-s (etc.) when the text being transcribed uses the short-s (etc.).

    Take, for example, old Bibles and new Bibles.  We have some Bibles here on Wikisource from the 1600s.  We have other Bibles here from modern times.  When a person goes to look at one of the Bibles from the 1600s, that person wants to see all of the original typography; otherwise, she or he would have directed her- or himself to a more-modern printing.  If we incorporate modern typography into transcriptions of old printings, we do a grave disservice to those who are specifically seeking out those old printings.

    allixpeeke (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, although I have trouble seeing how our having material in one format in our transclusions makes it harder for parties interested in the original forms of the typography to get them from the .pdf or .djvu we are basing the transclusion on. And, speaking personally, as someone who is highly involved in religious content here and elsewhere, personally, I want stuff I can read easily, and sometimes older typography isn't easy to read. I imagine the same might be true for students looking for a good source to use in papers, most of which are in current typography too. On that basis, and given that I don't know what proportion of readers meet the criteria you discuss, I'm not sure exactly how much of a disservice we would be doing, although, I guess, if rules here permit it, maybe having some older books in ye olde type for those interested in such might be possible, maybe? John Carter (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, people could take a look at the .pdfs/.djvus in order to see the original text, but then again, transcribing texts from .pdfs/.djvus into .html/wikitext is what wikisource is all about; otherwise, we'd simply upload .pdfs/.djvus here and do nothing more with them.

It's not unusual for someone to look for "stuff [she or he] can read easily," but I must ask you this:  When you, John Carter, go looking for easy-to-read Biblical content, do you tend to look for older sources or newer?

Personally, when I have occasion to look up stuff in the Bible, I go to the New American Bible (Revised Edition) (2011).  Sometimes I may opt for a side-by-side comparison with the New King James Version (1982).  But when I go to the Douay–Rheims Bible (1582–1610), I'm definitely not looking for easy readability; I'm looking for the actual 1582–1610 text.

Even back when I was a student, I always preferred the actual text as opposed to modernisations in spelling and typography.  It doesn't take much effort for students to take "The Booke of Genesis" and "the Spirite of God moued ouer the waters" (e.g.) and rewrite them as "The Book of Genesis" and "the Spirit of God moved over the waters" if they for some reason really need to.  (Doing so doesn't even require the student to look at the .pdf/.djvu; the student is able to make this revision, if necessary, by merely remembering how things are spelled nowadays.)  Conversely, however, taking a modernisation and diligently rendering it back to the original can be painstaking, especially insofar as the text that needs to be unmodernised is lengthy.  (The student has to keep looking at the .pdf/.djuv and then back at the document she/he is writing, back to the .pdf/.djuv, back to the document, back and back again.)

I am not averse to the idea of having texts rendered in dual formats.  That said, I regard the original print formats to be the more-valuable renderings, and any modernisations we do of secondary value.

Yours respectfully,
allixpeeke (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This is why I like {{ls}} so much: it renders as 's' for the majority of people who want to have something easy to read, but individual users can configure their profile such that it renders as 'ſ' instead. It essentially removes the debate completely. Hard-coded ſ or {{s}}, on the other hand, should only be used sparingly, and with a good reason. In this version of Pilgrim's Progress, the original editor's insistence on preserving the typography provides that good reason. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl:

You write, "This is why I like {{ls}} so much: it renders as 's' for the majority of people who want to have something easy to read, but individual users can configure their profile such that it renders as 'ſ' instead."

I have searched through the Preferences options, and I don't see how to turn it on so that I do see the long-s.  How do I do that?  Please help.

Thanks in advance,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The documentation at Template:ls describes how to do this. You will need to modify your personal CSS file (Special:MyPage/common.css) or your personal JS file (Special:MyPage/common.js). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I disagree; if I'm looking at the Wycliffe Bible, it's because I want to know what the Wycliffe Bible says, not because I care about the particular details of orthography. You talk about typography and use examples from orthography when we dispose of the first and keep the second, and the questions all lie on the line. We do keep the original text; the question is whether these features are text or typography.
I think it's also a peculiar choice to pick a book in translation. There are a lot of works that have no "modern edition"; American Cookery is one, and I think it entirely likely to want to read the details of early US cooking without digging through weird typography that might well stop someone unfamiliar with it. "the Spirite of God moued ouer the waters" forces me to stop and figure out what it says, a great deterrent if I'm trying to read more than a couple sentences.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
It's funny you should mention the Wycliffe Bible, since I just went searching around the Internet specifically looking for transcriptions that included the original typography earlier today!  I even found a few that looked pretty good, having the thorn and whatnot correctly displayed.  But, to my utter chagrin, I couldn't find a single one that had all of the books' titles in their original typography!  Every book was either titled in modern English or semi-modernised English.  It was completely useless to my needs!

In any event, the Wycliffe Bible is a perfect example of a text that is best presented with side-by-side versions, showcasing both the original Middle English typography and a translation into modern English.  How better to show the evolution of the English language from the Middle Ages to today?  If only the modern English translation is presented, then all that rich history is tossed away.

allixpeeke (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about a translation into modern English! We're not even talking about modernizing spelling of the words. We're talking about changing a few letterforms to modern letterforms. Transcription is quite far from the original manuscript, but is also quite far from translation into modern English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Enhancing PDF output[edit]

Hello everyone, it is my first time here :). My name is Moushira, and I am part of the community engagement team at Wikimedia Foundation. The Reading team is currently working on enhancing the PDF rendering output of printed articles and books, for more information, please check the page here which explains the changes, and please, add comments or questions, if any. Thank you! --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Melamrawy (WMF): This is a change to the Collection extension isn't it? That extension isn't used much on Wikisources, because we've got the wsexport tool that works better for the sorts of books that are usually exported from Wikisource. I imagine that the new HTML-based rendering will work a lot better than the LaTeX-conversion system, given that a lot of proofreading here is non-structural and relies on CSS to indicate things like headers etc. However, it's always seemed strange to me that we should have two different export methods on Wikisource, and my personal opinion is that it would be better to not have the Collection extension here at all — or for it to complete replace wsexport (which seems very unlikely, as that tool does a wonderful job and is very much built for Wikisource). Sam Wilson 04:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Links to wikisource in wikipedia[edit]

I've been looking over various wikipedia articles related to topics here and am finding actually not all that many articles over there that have many particularly useful links here, which probably doesn't help that much. As I am, maybe, one of the most hybrid, or bi-site, or whatever term, complementary or otherwise, editors around, I guess I could try to improve that, although it might take awhile. Do we have anything around here which basically just lists all the transcriptions or works, including I guess all the articles and such? John Carter (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@John Carter: I don't make it a point to add links to works as such but I very frequently add w:Template:Sisterlinks to articles and end up linking here to portals, author pages, and categories. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, right, my mistake in phrasing there. I generally add that too, where such exist. I still don't see that many links over there, although, in at least a few cases, we have good useful small links in the bibliographies or other reading to specific works here. I'm guessing what I was thinking of was, for instance, wikipedia:Joseph (Genesis) and the like, where I don't see much at all, because religion and history is the stuff I look most often at. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
My own area of emphasis here is Athenian Drama, and I have made certain that the authors, plays, etc. are linked. And links have been made using w:Template:Wikisource (or author), via Wikidata for the plays themselves, or by linking cited sources in the bibliography section (such as at w:Ajax (play). Linkage will vary by subject area and by involvement of the editors who specialize there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
If there is already an {{Infobox book}} template on the WP article, then a Wikisource field is available to link to the work here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
But the {{Infobox play}} template has no such field. Several other non-book boxes also lack this field. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
And w:en:Template:Infobox writer could also be modified to have links to our Author pages. Sam Wilson 02:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-01[edit]

18:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Index:Paper and Its Uses.djvu[edit]

I can't find anything on the author in Google, other than this work, which is making it hard to track down the dates. Also it seems this work is an update from a much earlier on by a different author who I've also been trying to trace with little success. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggest this might be his pedigree: Edward Arthur Dawe (house painter and paper-hanger; 1884-1970)?
I truly doubt that assignation. Did you read the small print of the title? Public servant with office at HMSO at the age of 25 who progresses to be a house painter and wallpaper. Doubtful. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Edward Arthur Dawe (1875–1963), occupation shown as clerk with knowledge in printing @HMSO (1911 England census). Born Exeter, died Wallington.probate. Father was a photographer. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Author:Edward A. Dawe created, What license to use? (And I note based on the dates the scans might need to be localised from Commons.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Why you never ever indent your comments? It's not that difficult.— Mpaa (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: file moved here, and deleted at Commons. Please update local file. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-04[edit]

20:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

AWB/bot Request[edit]

Does someone have a "conversion therapy" bot for apostrophes and quotes? (i.e makes them all straight.)

Was considering suggesting as a potential FT: Index:The_pilgrim's_progress_by_John_Bunyan_every_child_can_read_(1909).djvu

but another contributor expressed a concern about curved vs straight quotes.

Index:The Pilgrim's Progress, the Holy War, Grace Abounding Chunk1.djvu is what I was working on at the moment, and was wanting that to be consistent as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry for causing confusion. I have not noticed a problem in "Every Child Can Read". The mixture of straight and curved apostrophes/quotes is in the "Grace Abounding Chunk1". BethNaught (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: The nice thing is that it's easy to change <‘> and <’> to <'> since the curly quotes versions are almost only used for one purpose but an apostrophe is used all over the place for all kinds of purposes. Similarly, <“> and <”> to <">. It would require some discrimination for a very few cases but someone could easily do it with a replacement rule. If you need me, let me know. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Let's do the obvious cases first. The apostrophes may be have to done by a manual check. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Although our style guide says we should use typewriter quotes, I understand there are some dissenters from this. I don't think it is a good idea to unleash a bot on this until you are certain of consensus support for it. Hesperian 02:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
There are some cases where it's appropriate to use curly quotes, such as when the original work goes out of its way to intentionally do so. I ran into an example a while back which used straight quotes for quotation, and then the curly versions for nested quotations. Eg. "The man said to me, “Hello!” and then ran away."
Personally I just clean up the curly quotes manually as part of validation. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
e.g. Page:EB1911 - Volume 22.djvu/665 Hesperian 04:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The style guide permits the use of curly quotes—provided that they are applied consistently throughout a whole work and a note to that effect is placed on the Index Talk: page by consensus of the proofreaders. If this is so, then validators are expected not to change to straight quotes. A bot that overrides a consensus on a particular work would be unacceptable. (Note: this is not a support of the use of curly quotes). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Once you have finished the style discussion, any bot requests belong (weirdly) at Wikisource:Bot requests. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

A Woman of the Century[edit]

user:Zoeannl i belatedly found this work A Woman of the Century after uploading duplicate scan Index:A woman of the century.djvu after Index:Woman of the Century.djvu. the new scan looks cleaner, but thoughts ? delete new scan ? copy over OCR to old ? Slowking4RAN's revenge 05:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

It would take a lot of effort, but it would be worth looking through every page before making a decision, in order to make sure that the scan is complete and of quality throughout. I have occasionally found "better" scans at IA or Google, only to later discover missing pages, duplicate pages, pages blurred beyond hope of reading, etc. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Cleaning up that work is not going to be that problematic, most of it was bot applied, so we can work out which is preferable, move the requisite pages in whichever direction, and then clean up. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Addendum. The reason that the pages are bot applied is that often one wishes to work on a specific biography from the complete work, so this makes finding them easier. For some biographical works even adding a search on the index page for the Page: ns is advantageous. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
ok, i will start in with index (found at separate prospectus) and then start in on new scan. we can bot copy over if decided later. Slowking4RAN's revenge 20:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, we can leave it with you. Do we prod you in later in Feb. so it is not forgotten? I would hate for work to get done on one of the variations and get lost/confused/wasted. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Categories and {{plain sister}}[edit]

Should it be our practice to put {{plain sister}} template in each of our created categories? This means that once they are in Wikidata that they are interwiki paired by that system. Where we do have the template in place, then we can look getting them into WD as I don't think that we have many that are currently in that system (said without checking at all). — billinghurst sDrewth 22:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
It's certainly worth doing a trial run to see what we get. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this seems like a sensible thing to do. We need better descriptions on category pages, and this could help with clarifying what particular categories are intended to do (by linking them to their equivalent concepts elsewhere). Sam Wilson 04:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Perish the thought, are we wanting to have {{category header}}. It enables a continued development, especially if we have wikidatafied. unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) .
Indeed! I have been wanting {{category}} for years!! :-) To specify interwiki links, and what namespaces files should be in a category, and most importantly a good highly-visible description of what the category is for. Sam Wilson 10:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Digha Nikaya ... to a portal?[edit]

Anyone got ideas on where this sits? There does not seem to be a complete published work by the name so sitting it in the main ns seems inappropriate, and it seems to have components in numbers of places. Do we think that it should be a portal? (happy for anyone to make a solution) — billinghurst sDrewth 22:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

By itself, it is not a single work. It is a collection of 34 separate works, arranged in 3 divisions, originally in Pali language. 1987 tr. by Maurice Walshe is available at 1899 tr. by Rhys Davids, in 3 vols, is at 1, 2, 3. Therefore yes, complete published work in English translation is available; but not in Wikisource right now. Hrishikes (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
In that sense it looks like it would be comparable to the Bible, also a collection of 24 to 51 books (depending who you ask) in up to 3 divisions. In that case, a mainspace page would be appropriate, especially as the collection is generally published as a unit, but individual mainspace pages for each component work would also be approporiate. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
But we don't have it as a single published work, which is our focus for main namespace. So either it becomes a disambiguation page if we have more than one copy of the work, or in its current form it becomes a portal. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
This collection does not behave like a portal. In a portal, the order of the listed works is not fixed. If fiction is before poetry, you can change it. You can also add new items. In Digha Nikaya, the number of components is fixed. Their order is also fixed. A portal where you cannot change the order of the items, cannot add extra items, I don't think the concept of such an un-amendable portal exists in this site. From this angle, the components behave more like chapters of a book. Hrishikes (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The order and number of elements in the Bible is also fixed (albeit they differ slightly among religious groups), so a Portal is probably the best approach, just as we have done for the Judeo-Christian Bible. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
In a portal the order of works is what we make it, many are not ordered, but that is just those. An portal can be what we make it IMNSHO. If a portal page is ordered and should remain ordered, then it is stated to be so. I also understand that it can be considered a book, that is not my argument, that page is a construct, not a published work. The main ns is for published works, so those components published appear as per the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst, @EncycloPetey: The text here is indeed published work. It is the Rhys Davids translation; IA has it, in 3 vols., link given above. Although the current root page is a TOC only. Hrishikes (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood. The Portal is a construct, and not itself a published work, so it has flexibility. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I do not understand what you mean by misunderstanding. The root page here is a TOC; linked items are the items in the Rhys Davids translation. That 3-vol-set is Part 2 of the series, Sacred Books of the Buddhists, edited by Max Müller. This series is analogous to another series Sacred Books of the East, also edited by Max Müller. Hrishikes (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: What exactly was published and when. The versions of the bible that we have are specific editions, I do not see that Digha Nikaya is an edition of an English translation. To me it looks like a construct. If that work has been published like that, then let us get it into the shape expected of an edition. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I have added the concerned index files and also the migrate to djvu template on the root page. Currently the root page shows the TOC of all 3 volumes, which is not appropriate, I think. The name should also be changed to English (Dialogues of the Buddha) from the current Pali form. To reconcile the Pali and English forms, I have moved the root page to Portal:Tipitaka/Digha Nikaya, and now, the linked component works can be kept in the main space under English title used by Rhys Davids. Hrishikes (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Always good to get knowledge and sense applied to a solution. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-05[edit]

18:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Tyronian et[edit]

I started working on Index:The Jolly Pinder of Wakefield with Robin Hood Scarlet and John.jpg, which is a poem written in blackletter font. For simplicity's sake, I'm dropping the blackletter typeface and updating the long-s and rotund-r to regular s and r and so forth. However, the text also makes significant use of the Tyronian et, '⁊', which is also a defunct character. Based on w:Tyronian et and w:Ampersand, this symbol is not just an old version of & or + or similar 'and' symbols, so I can't just replace it with the modern version. Should I preserve the et symbol in the text, or replace it with something? If I replace it, with what? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean w:Tironian notes? It is an abbreviation for "and", so there's no reason not to replace it with & unless the text actually uses it for basically word-play.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
As a side note -- whatever you decide can you note it on the Index's talk page for the reference of whoever comes by to validate? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I've replaced it with & in the text and made a note of it in the Index talk page. I have also created {{et}} (similar to {{ls}} and {{rr}}) for future use as desired. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Oof, this is going to be one of those things ... the {{et}} renders like a little rectangle for me. :( --Mukkakukaku (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Pretty sure that rendering was one of the matters that we covered all those years ago. That said, we now have {{ULS}} capability added since those years ago, so maybe see what may be renderable through that implementation. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, based on the info at the enWP article and that cool {{ULS}} template, I've hacked together this, which shows for me: . Which I think is the letter we're all talking about? Except it just renders like a square for me even in the text input area which makes it really hard to work with.... --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Please don't use ULS in the template. Most of the places I've seen this character are within the context of {{blackletter}} or {{insular}} and this will override those. Sometimes you just need to display a raw Unicode character. If necessary, you can use Special:MyPage/common.css to set a font-family on the class "typographic-et". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Well yeah, but overwriting my common.css will just help me and let everyone else with the same problem see little rectangles. Given the choice between seeing a little rectangle or seeing a letter in a different font in the middle of a blackletter, I think the second is preferred. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Some custom Wikidata queries about WS[edit]

I'm gradually learning how to write queries for Wikidata, so my work might duplicate work elsewhere, but I've found these useful:

  1. Dead people with a Project Gutenberg ID but no English Wikisource profile, whose main language isn't English (source): a source of people who are very likely to have public domain English text, but no WS author profile. Including people with no language defined captures a lot of people who definitely didn't write English, but also many who did. The first several entries in this are Chinese, but keep scrolling.
  2. Wikisource items with no statement of what they are (no "instance of" or "type" statement) (source) ordered by number of statements Wikidata has about them.
  3. Number of Wikisource entries of each type (excluding Wikimedia internal stuff), along with the number in each category that have a publication date attached (source)

Hope these are useful to somebody. Is there a central place on WD or WS where relevant WD queries reside? Are there queries like this that people would like created? MartinPoulter (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing sections[edit]

There is a block of several discussions on this page that cannot be edited by my, for whatever reason. They do not have [edit] displaying, and when I try to circumvent this by editing a different section, and changing the section number, the system balks. Is anyone else having this issue? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes.  I've resorted to hitting the main edit button for the section missing section-edit links.  allixpeeke (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
It looks as though billinghurst has sorted the problem now. :) --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

What would you like done about "found" dates of death or birth?[edit]

In fixing up author pages I have come across a situation where we have had authors having died since we created the author page, predominantly people with {{the licence of {{PD-USGov}}, though not exclusively. The data in the situation that I was looking at is in Wikidata.

If the data is in wikidata, we can right a test within {{author}} to display the data for year of death where we have left it empty. Is that something that contributors like to see done? Plus if we do that, are we wanting this to be the only solution? Or are we then wishing to manually enter that data locally to the template, ie. create another maintenance task (either manual or possibly bot'able)

To note that I ran a test query with petscan that looked at pages within Category:Authors with missing death dates and then said show me pages where wikidata has a "date of death" property. There are numbers of "no value" or "unknown value" fields which would require some qualification, though that is fairly simple.

Then it poses the situation that we can do the same for missing birth dates. What would the community like done. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

There are also situations where we have the data (manually entered by someone) and Wikidata, even VIAF does not. So we should keep both options open. The Wikidata option should be default, it should be displayed as long as someone manually does not enter something. If some manual entry is made, that should override the input from Wikidata. I have seen many times that editors here make entry of birth and death years after considerable research. This practice often yields valuable information, and should not be discontinued. However, editors should be encouraged to update the concerned fields in Wikidata simultaneous with local entry. Hrishikes (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
might want to think about author template pulling items from wikidata and edit data there. if you find a source, update it and include url reference. Slowking4RAN's revenge 02:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata sometimes lists more than one date of birth or death, especially for ancient and classical authors, where sources disagree about the date. There is also the issue that Wikidata sometimes records dates using the Julian calendar or other systems, according to whatever source was cited for the date. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: That is why I am asking, it is a technical vs. social question. What does the community want?
@EncycloPetey: That is all able to be identified and managed if we choose to take the WD-populated approach. 1) if multiple dates of birth we can always take the preferred. 2) If it is a Julian date, we can call back that qualifier, too. If we can identify what we want to do, then we can identify how we do, and a plan to avoid the pitfalls. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually as I asked the question, I didn't express an opinion, though that I asked at all flags my general thoughts. Some thoughts, philosophically I would like to be able to use a set of authoritative or best known data for our {{author}} and {{header}} templates. I would much rather have data stored in WD, and be widely available, searchable and retrievable, rather than bottled-up here, and I would much rather have data entered correctly once, than in multiple places. [Call me lazy] That said we don't want dodgy data, and we do want the ability to readily manage data, so we want to have the ability to set up alerts and warnings.

If we do have our data well-populated at WD, I see that it offers us more, much more, enabling smart tools to do smart things. An example of the bigger sorts of things that we could do is use ListeriaBot to generate all our Wikisource:Authors-... pages and to update on a regular basis. For that we need 1) all authors in WD, and on author items 2) first and family names, 3) dates/years of birth and death, 4) a descriptor.

We can set up WD at a passive level, and do some mix and match with available tools, or by use of categories to identify where data differs between our data and WD data. In the end it is about what level of control, and whether we wish to manually enter data, and have it potentially out-of-date, or to let the system populate, and us to overview. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I think that if data for blank parameters is in Wikidata then we should use it. Also, as @Slowking4 says, that if the {{author}} template uses Wikidata data, then any wrong dates can be fixed over there instead. I've been investigating converting the date-handling bits of {{author}} to Lua (in Module:Author:dates()). Doing that would mean the various confusions around multiple dates and different qualifiers etc. could be handled with more ease than is the case in pure wikitext (e.g. multiple possible years for Author:David (1039 BCE/1040 BCE – 969 BCE/970 BCE) rather than just 'circa' (c. 1040 BCE – c. 970 BCE), to be more accurate). We can add tracking categories for managing the cases where data is different. Do you think this is a worthwhile direction to explore?

I've started writing some test cases to make it easier to maintain too. Sam Wilson 06:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops, I was actually replying to your earlier comment @Billinghurst (you posted as I was writing), but I'm just agreeing with you, so it sort of makes sense still. :-) I think the way forward is to use WD data where we can, and bit by bit migrate to only using it. Sam Wilson 06:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: What we call "first name" and "family name" here are very different from what Wikidata uses. Our values are a matter of convenience, splitting the name so that the "family name" sets the alphabetical positioning for sorting, regardless of whether it is actually the "family name" or not. Likewise, the "first name" value is the remainder of the name to complete display in the header, and not simply the "first name". Wikidata does not do it this way, so there will not be a match.
Additionally, Wikidata values will necessarily be dynamic. It is not uncommon for the primary value for a name or name element at Wikidata to be altered. This would play havoc with any kind of internal linking to Author pages if we took that information dynamically from Wikidata, or updated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: I understand that there are issues to work through, datum to populate, however, our "lastname" ties to "family name" and their combinations for "first name" can align with our components of "firstname", eg. Author:Adam Storey Farrar and d:Q350994. We can and should also be demanding of the system to generate data aligned with our needs. I have started working with their team to look at utilising our template parameters to further populate their data, and one of their team is involved with frWS. We will hasten slowly and deliberately. Sitting on our hands and doing nothing, means we become static and isolated, and to me that is a danger. We need to have bots, tools, and data extraction to make us more visible, and more flexible and to do the drudge work. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I'm thinking especially of names from Arabic and Chinese, of medieval and classical names, of names that are royal or clerical, and of pseudonyms and pen names, where the usual rules seldom apply. Whatever we choose to do will have to account for such situations and ones like them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: These are definitely things to be careful of. I think a lot of it comes down to how names are represented in WD, because I think it's pretty possible to capture all the nuance that is required at Wikisource, but that sometimes people don't add all the required data (which is fine; we can just fix it up). For example, given name (P735) can contain multiple statements, and each should be given a series ordinal (P1545) qualifier to record what order the names go in. So we can recreate the Wikisource version of someone's name by joining the names together in the required order. And then we could add maintenance categories to help fix the pages where the page title doesn't match what is retrieved from Wikidata. Do you have some examples of authors to examine?

Anyway, I think the current discussion is just about dates isn't it? (Specifically the idea to use Wikidata where there's no local date given.) Should we defer the discussion of names until the dates are sorted out? Sam Wilson 03:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: what do you think of the idea of switching {{author}} to using Module:Author? It should leave everything pretty much as it is, but also give us Category:Authors with birth dates differing from Wikidata and Category:Authors with death dates differing from Wikidata as a means to find problems. Do you have example authors with particularly weird dates? —Sam Wilson 06:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Some examples of authors with weird dates:
All of these are from Category:Ancient Roman authors, and there are more besides—some with two birth dates separated by a slash and such. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hm, yeah, there's some weird ones! :) Will try to fix...
Sam Wilson 01:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment why are we trying to generate vague years of birth and death in such situations, we simply should be using floriut. It is something that we would do well to reflect upon with wikidata availability. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that (4th century – 4th century) and (1st century BCE – 1st century BCE) should just be rendered as (4th century) and (1st century BCE) respectively; I think that's what most editors have done with the dates parameter in the past for such authors. However, if that's too much bother, I don't think it matters very much. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Typo: floruit, and I think using that in any instance where the birth and death dates are identical would be a good approach. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, nice. YesYbillinghurst sDrewth 00:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I edited Author:Quintus Curtius Rufus and found out that the qualifier for a date of death was "presumably" at wikidata, which is pretty weird . As we didn't plan for such use we didn't give a "c." marker, we may wish to monitor for it. (Personally I think that they should be corrected, which is what I did for this at WD.)

Wikidata date guidance[edit]

Cleanups required ...[edit]

Looking at the some of the pages that are throwing up errors, I see that there are some practices that have taken place that are not ideal, especially if we can automate data. Some of these are also unnecessary as the author template had also means to handle some uncertainty. So without discussing the value of the parameters are sourced here or at WD, there is cleanup. We should maybe classify what needs to be done to what is clearly needed doing, and stuff that should be discussed in some depth. (Please feel free to add to the list)

Uncontroversial tasks

  • remove birthyear = ?
  • remove deathyear = ?
  • remove dates = ?-? and variations

Other tasks

Shall we proceed with these?— Mpaa (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. I'm confused about the categories though. Is the current idea is that authors with empty birth or death dates (i.e. empty here and on Wikidata) are categorised in Category:Authors with missing birth dates, but if we "know that we don't know" then they're in Category:Authors with unknown birth dates? What's the difference between Category:Authors with unknown birth dates and Category:? births (and their 'death' counterparts)? On the face of it I think we only need:
  1. Category:Authors with missing birth dates
  2. Category:Authors with missing death dates
  3. Category:Living authors
There's no difference between a 'missing' and an 'unknown' birth date, because every author was born. The only difference comes with death dates, because living authors don't have death dates but that's not because they're missing.
With regard to displaying the dates and question marks, I think a missing birth or death date should be displayed as a '?', because for living people we already leave a blank death date after the dash (e.g. "?–1890" or "1840–?" for dead authors, or "1940–" for a living author). Alternatively, we could go the Wikipedia MoS route and do "b. 1940" for living authors, so that any dates with a dash would end with a date or a question mark. Or maybe just write "(living)" or something after instead?
Sam Wilson 02:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
How are you going to tell the difference between a living person, and a person with no death data? If they were born a loooong time ago (>120 years), then we can assume that they are dead, and apply "?", if they are marked as death date unknown/not recorded at WD, then we can apply a "?". If there is nothing shown, and < 120 years I will presume that we will regard as (presumed) living. I am happy with no terminator, it is understood and is easier to do automagically. To complicate matters, we are starting to get modern works that are freely licensed papers, and typically we don't have dates of life for these authors. So to me it seems wrong to manage that as ?–? for an author of a 2017 paper is not pertinent. Plus we are going to need to manage two different scenarios of "no birth date/no death date". I would always recommend play it safe, and we wait until there is some data like floruit or like showing which we can hang off and apply ?–? to it. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I think we just have to assume that if no death date is given then they're alive, because it's easy to add 'unknown value' as the death date if they're known to be dead. At least, this seems to be the way it's working on Wikidata. The Author module here also takes "death date = no value" to mean living. We could additionally not mark people born more than 120 years ago as living (seems sensible to me) but we should really just do this as a way of tracking who needs to be updated at wikidata.

For the 2017 author example, I guess the current answer would be (20th century –); does this sound okay?

Birth dates are different in all this, because every author either has one or it is "unknown", so I think we only need Category:Authors with missing birth dates. Death dates have three states: known, unknown, and "living" (or no value). What do we need the other categories for?

Sam Wilson 02:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Index:Majjhima Nikāya.djvu[edit]

Non english work? Uploaded for translation? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Creation of an index page is within scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation in Translation: namespace[edit]

We need to update {{disambiguation}} to work in the Translation: namespace. Parked here in case someone gets the time to do it before I do. We need to fix Translation:Penal Code of Thailand.

In fact there is a bit of work to do around those works as there is a portal-type construction going on there around dynamic laws, contrary to WS:WWI. Though one thing at a time. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Why not limit {{disambiguation}} to the Main namespace. If there is a page in the Translation namespace that needs to function as a disambiguator (as we have here), then redirect it to the Main namespace for disambiguation, and link to entities there. Otherwise, we could end up with situations where we duplicate disambiguation lists in two different namespaces (e.g. when there are one or more copies in the Main namespace and one or more in the Translations namespace). --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
There was some similar commentary in /Archives/2016-10#Disambiguation and Wikidata items — a conundrum with no perfect solution by Hesperian. So are you thinking that no disambiguation in Translation: namespace, and that we utilise main namespace with templates disambiguation/versions/translations. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that would be the simplest solution. The alternative would be to follow what the Italian Wikisource has started doing, and create an entirely new "Work:" namespace where information about any work is stored, including all versions/translations listings. However, I'm not decided in my own mind that their approach is a good or necessary change. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that translations should be disambiguated in mainspace (Odes is an okay example). This is especially true since occasionally works in mainspace and works in Translation space need to be disambiguated from each other. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Attempting a summary[edit]

We are therefore saying

  1. disambiguate only once per title variation (all namespaces);
  2. {{disambiguation}} can be used in one of three namespaces of Main, Author, Portal; and not in Translation, shouldn't be required elsewhere, think that there is one in Wikisource:
  3. that where {{disambiguation}} is used it will initially occur in the namespace of the conflict; and if there is a title conflict in the main namespace with other namespaces (portal, author, translation), then the disambiguation will only take place in main namespace, and not be duplicated in other namespaces.

OR; I could more aggressively read the above comment to replace the last dot point as

  1. (as above)
  2. (as above)
  3. All disambiguation shall take place for all namespaces in the main namespaces, irrespective of where the conflict takes place.
    Noting that the consequence of this variation would be that we would need to consider the status of all existing disambiguation pages outside of the main namespace (currently 250+ in Author, 5 in Portal


  • Any further comment?
  • Should we prod the broader community for their opinion prior to next steps? Yes check.svg Done
  • What about guidance {{versions}} and {{translations}} which both could be used in Translation: namespace — noting that they are not currently.

Required outputs:

  • Update Help:Disambiguation
  • Possibly update existing disambiguation pages
  • Possible tracking of use of templates (either Petscan or tracking categories)

billinghurst sDrewth 06:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Watchlist announcement put in place for all logged-in users. Suggested close of RFC: 14 February 2017

Comment about disambiguation change[edit]

I think that your summary #2 is the best option. I think it is worth noting that pages in mainspace and pages in Translation space are closely related, in that they are both works. Thus, a work called (say) Tim Jones could exist in mainspace, and another different work called Tim Jones could exist in Translation space. In such a case, Wikisource would have two hosted works entitled Tim Jones, and it would be useful to disambiguate between them; the appropriate place for such a disambiguation would be mainspace.
I am not sure about {{translations}} and {{versions}} without specific use cases. It seems to me that {{versions}} would be utterly inappropriate in Translations space, since {{translations}} is essentially the same thing as {{versions}} but for translations, and every single work in Translations space is a translation. I could see {{translations}} being used in Translation space if there were multiple Wikisource translations of the same work, but even then I would put the disambig page in mainspace. An example would be İstiklâl Marşı. Sometimes of course there will be a mix of translations in mainspace and in Translation space, such as The Internationale. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
You've misunderstood. The items given above constitute a summary, not a list of options. We're not choosing one of them; we're choosing all of them, or modifying them as needed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it appears I did misunderstand. I think that mainspace works and Translation space works are both works, and therefore should be disambiguated with each other, and such disambiguation page should be in mainspace only. I think that Author space pages and Portal space pages are not works and should not require disambiguation with works in either mainspace or Translation space, even if the names are the same (e.g. St. Francis of Assisi and Author:Francis of Assisi) although in such case a link from one space to the other could be appropriate as in the example. I don't think this view aligns with either summary above, so do with my two cents as you will. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The one comment to add here, and it was what provoked the previous thread (linked above) is that a disambiguation page we can only have one link to English Wikisource from Wikidata (like all interwiki links). So if Wikidata has the disambiguation page "John Smith" that can only be linked to once so would take main ns Whilst there could also be a disambiguation page "Author:John Smith" it would sit separate from the other disambig page, it would presumably never have a pairing page. And at the moment our linking to Wikidata from our content namespaces ignores the namespace nomenclature, so it would add complexity. That may not matter, and should not be the determinator, it is something to note, and consider. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I personally do not think that that is a major problem, at least not for us. Commons has an issue where a given person might have a gallery in mainspace, a category in Category space, and a Creator space page as well, but only one page can be listed for Commons as an interwiki link. I understand that Wikidata is doing its best to accomodate Commons, rather than Commons accomodating Wikidata. In our case, I do not think that the benefit of having automatic interwiki links on our disambig pages is sufficient to justify the great undertaking of merging all disambiguation pages to mainspace. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
And to elaborate further: we do have instances where a work exists in multiple namespaces at once, e.g. Matthew (Bible) (the work) and Portal:Gospel of Matthew (works about the work), which has the same problem as having a disambiguation exist in multiple namespaces at once. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, yes and no. There is no reason that Portal:Gospel of Matthew will be limited to copies of Matthew's gospel, or to works title "Matthew", but the page for Matthew (Bible) and Matthew are necessarily so limited. And it is always possible to have a more broadly defined portal that simply points to a disambiguation page for that portion of its content, but more likely it will contain a richer source of information. Consider Portal:Ancient Greek drama as an example of a Portal presentation that does list the translations of various Greek tragedies, but do so in a completely different sort of way from the associated disambiguation pages. So, I don't think the situation of having some duplication between Main namespace disambiguation and Portal namespace is especially relevant. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I think perhaps you have misunderstood me. What I mean is this, with a better example:
  • The item that is the Gospel of John, represented on Wikidata as d:Q36766, has two pages on Wikisource: John (gospel) listing translations of this item, and Portal:Gospel of John listing works related to this item.
  • The item that is disambiguation on "John", represented on Wikidata as d:Q397210, has two pages on Wikisource: John listing works labelled as this item, and Author:John listing people labelled as this item.
To me these scenarios are functionally equivalent and therefore quite relevant to the discussion. It is common practice to split a logical item into pages in separate namespaces with separate functions, and this is true of both disambig pages and work pages. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Further to the above: if people really want to consolidate disambig pages from works, authors, and portals all on one page, I would not oppose a move in that direction, and in that case would prefer all such disambig pages to be in mainspace. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I vote for mainspace-only. In my view:

  1. Disambiguation pages (and also versions pages and translations pages) are in essence curated search results: a user types something into the search box, and, rather than let it be handled by the search tool, we intercept it and present a list of the things they were likely looking for. Or, a user follows an incorrect (because ambiguous) link, and we present a list of the things they were likely looking for.
  2. With respect to the search box case: Only our experienced users (i.e. mainly our editors) know to type "Author:George Bush" into the search box, and we don't really need to worry about them—they will find what they are looking for. Our inexperienced users will type "George Bush" every time, and we must respond to this by taking them to our curated content, else there's no point having it. At present, these users get presented with search results, because George Bush doesn't exist. This suggests mainspace-only disambiguation pages are the way to go.
    aside @Hesperian: did you see #SEARCH: Subphrase matching. I am of a mind to ask whether the default for the community (anon and new) could be set to subphrase. That partially addresses the cases that you mention. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. With respect to the incorrect link case, this is best handled by us editors not creating such links in the first place. I know if I add a link that points to Author:George Bush and it comes up blue in preview, then I'll probably save without looking at the target. Thus we build up a heap of incorrect links to Author:George Bush, and these links then serve to justify the existence of the page. But if the page didn't exist, the link would have come up red, and I would have checked and disambiguated.

Hesperian 04:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Henry's earlier edition[edit]

PeterR2 found a 1721 edition edition of Matthew Henry's An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828). It is not the whole thing, just the last folio in a four-volume set. I had started working on the later edition because I thought that the whole Bible version was not published until the nineteenth century. Matthew Henry died before finishing the final volume and other people completed it from his notes. Originally I thought that it was not published until about a century later, but I was definitely wrong. It has wonderful old-timey typography. In any case, the pdf is originally at Princeton, where I do not have a library account. Are there any legal concerns with moving the volume to Commons? Does anybody have access to download the pdf? Heyzeuss (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow entirely, but if your only problem is downloading the work from HathiTrust, I've compiled instructions for how to do so without a login here. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
How, Mukkakukaku? I can download image or .PDF as single files and put them all together as one .PDF file but all single .PDFs have extra information added to both sides of the scan. It is as though each scan is placed on a larger sheet of white paper that has watermarks and information. —Maury (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Another point, I have never had to log in here to download anything from HathiTrust and I have downloaded several works from HathiTrust but usually one page at a time. —Maury (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, okay, on your user page - I thought you meant you placed that on Wikisource or had it in a file on your computer. I am in the USA and I do use Firefox. —Maury (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
DownThemAll of Firefox is good for those sites (like DLI) where pages are individually numbered. In HathiTrust, all pages are named "image", without numbering. During batch download, smaller files get downloaded earlier. So they get renamed as per chronology of download, not original order in the book. Moreover, text pages are in png format and image pages in jpg format; so they get renamed separately. To overcome this problem, I am using Hathi Download Helper for downloading from HathiTrust. It is a free software, you only need to enter the id of the work. You can save the work in pdf, images etc, ocr option is also there. Hrishikes (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Hrishikes. Typically I have been working with Adobe Acrobat 11.0.08 and learned several ways to work with files from there, pdf, png, or jpg. But I have downloaded DownThemAll and I will download what you have suggested to see what those programs will do. I don’t know why Mukkakukaku would make such an excellent statement and then not answer a question about it. Again, thank you, —Maury (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, another tip for whomever, those files named "image" can easily be renamed and an extension placed on it. For example, if I want 3 image files and it shows "image" I will give them a number page 344.jpg, 345.jpg, 346.jpg By numbering them in sequence they remain that way, in (alpha/numerical) order after downloading.—Maury (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Maury, I didn't see your question. I hope Hrishikes was able to clarify things for you. (I personally have never had the problem them mentioned about downloaded pages being out of order, but I'm definitely going to check out the download helper tool recommended above.) For naming the files I usually apply a mask to get them numbered, something like *name**inum*.*ext*, but I think you figured this out already. :) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
No problem, Mukkakukaku. I thought perhaps you were still in this area but I found your user page. The program is one I had not used and I was curious about it. Hrishikes posted a very good explanation for the both of us. My thanks to the both of you for mentioning and clarifying the programs. Respects, —Maury (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Just wondering whether anything further happened about this, Heyzeuss? PeterR2 (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Index:The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes.pdf[edit]

Was raised at CV a long time ago, Scans now deleted at Commons, which means it needs cleanup, anyone?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

See - for page links.

Thanks.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

And the Page: s ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Done.— Mpaa (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-06[edit]

19:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Fix coming this week[edit]

At the advanced Special:Search the use of MediaWiki:Powersearch-ns was broken for the use of wikilkinks. I reported it this week, and a fix is is in the code and expected to be rolled out this week. Once this is rolled out then we can mark this as resolved. The fix expected is that wikilink code will become a wikilink. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Proofread progress bar[edit]

Hi all, any chance we can get the proofread progress bar mw:Proofreadhelp#Proofreading_status_indicator next to listed works, or wherever we want it for each individual work. For example in portals or our user pages, where works are listed, to help with seeing where each individual work is at in the proofreading process. Is it possible?Jpez (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jpez: It has been previously talked about and there is a phabricator ticket somewhere, so no. BUT! Please see recent discussions here (probably archived) about use of Special:IndexPages and it can be utilised to display a cut down list, and that list transcluded. Definitely not as perfect as what you desire, however <shrug>. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jpez, @Billinghurst: It's a good idea, and wouldn't be too hard to implement I reckon. I can't find an existing phab task for it though; do you remember what it might be called? Or we can just create a new one. Sam Wilson 00:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I could be dreaming that it became a phabricator ticket, and it would have been bugzilla time anyway. I cannot find it listed at mul:Wikisource:Wishlist, so it maybe was just an item discussed with Tpt or ThomasV before that. <shrug> Create a new one. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Anyone willing to create the task? I wouldn't know where to begin myself. Jpez (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

CIA UFO reports[edit]

Hi, The CIA released last year some UFO reports [31]. I imported a few. May be some of you are interested: Index:Flying Saucers in East Germany, CIA Report.pdf. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Errata - because life is never simple[edit]

I've run into an issue on Page:Odes of Pindar (Myers).djvu/91 with the use of {{errata}} because the error to be annotated appears within a footnote.

Does anyone technically-minded enough have the means to edit the template, or to suggest a way this might be handled? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Nevermind. Found a workable solution documented at Help:Footnotes and endnotes that did the trick. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

New problem with {{errata}}: I'm getting text overlap at Page:Odes of Pindar (Myers).djvu/98, and this appears in the transcluded version as well.

Any suggestions? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Should be okay now. The style you applied to the containing <div> "text-indent:-1em" also applies to any block child elements, and {{errata}} displays as inline-block. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Add Wikidata to Special:Import sources[edit]

As with the recent discussion for imports from mediawiki and update to mul.wikisource, I would like the community to support the addition of Wikidata (d:) as a source for Special:Import. The primary reason for this is to allow administrators to directly update our modules for use of Wikidata. An example is that Module:Wikidata has been announced at d:Wikidata:Project chat as having been updated, and our only means to currently do that is a cut and paste. Cut and paste is less desirable, it adds new editors and doesn't clearly align with other versions which import will better do. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems like a no-brainer to me. --Xover (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Sam Wilson 21:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support obviously sensible, thanks sDrewth. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Index:Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management.djvu[edit]

All the recipe text is now present. Much appreciated if someone could work on the 16 pages of Menus, and the Index which remain, as I'd like to focus on some other projects.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned pages of deleted index.[edit]

Bulk speedy anyone?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong[edit]

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

Recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate — a chapter, thematic organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia mission.

The principal Wikimedia movement affiliate in the Hong Kong region is Wikimedia Hong Kong, a Wikimedia chapter recognized in 2008. As a result of Wikimedia Hong Kong’s long-standing non-compliance with reporting requirements, the Wikimedia Foundation and the Affiliations Committee have determined that Wikimedia Hong Kong’s status as a Wikimedia chapter will not be renewed after February 1, 2017.

If you have questions about what this means for the community members in your region or language areas, we have put together a basic FAQ. We also invite you to visit the main Wikimedia movement affiliates page for more information on currently active movement affiliates and more information on the Wikimedia movement affiliates system.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 16:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Tech News: 2017-07[edit]

18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-02[edit]

09:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Script created for assisting Fourier/FFT/descreening/half-tone removal workflows[edit]

I've assembled a bash script for assisting with workflows for removing half-toning and the resulting moire effects in scanned images. It automates a few of the tedious steps of FFT processing, automatically reprocessing an image each time an intermediary file is edited. It's primarily ripped from an ImageMagick guide, and requires ImageMagick and inotifywait.

I'm thinking of linking to this from the Commons guides to descreening: Help:Scanning and Commons:Cleaning up interference with Fourier analysis.

Any input would be appreciated. djr13 (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, that's cool. Will it run on Windows under Cygwin if I can convince ImageMagick to cooperate, do you think? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It would almost certainly require significant adaptation. I'm not sure if there's a Windows compatible equivalent of inotifywait...the script could be changed to make it an optional feature though. And of course that assumes you can run bash scripts without a problem. Feel free to modify it. I put it together rather crudely. djr13 (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Author template[edit]

Sorry everyone, I just stuffed up the author template for a moment. It's fixed now. I hiding the dates on author disambiguation pages (or rather their categories). Sam Wilson 04:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Samwilson: Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

How to edit a typo?[edit]

Here in the last sentence a scanning error: "We'11 have" instead of "We'll have". I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, but here after 10 mins of searching a way to edit this I decided to ask. --Neolexx (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Whatever you've done with the interface — it is way overdone.

@Neolexx: The page numbers on the left hand side of the page link through to the underlying publication with the image (from Commons). From there you can edit the text with the image. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, done. --Neolexx (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Short titles[edit]

Following a disscussion here:


I, felt this needed a wider disscusion.

Various items of legislation in the UK (and other Commonwealth Realms) use short titles.

English Wikisource has a Lua module accessed via a series of {{short-title}} templates.

However, those templates (which were used quite extensively by me), don't necessarily included any form of automatic disambiguation or ability to consider that different Jurisdictions may have identically titled legislation.

{{short-title/y1}} for example links to Copyright Act 1956 which is a redirect to the actual item at Copyright Act, 1956 (United Kingdom)

There hasn't to date necessarily been any consistency of titling, and I'm not aware of any semi-formalised Wikisource policy on this, so I am opening this thread with a view to establishing what the actual guidelines should be so that the relevant Lua module and dependent templates only need to broken ONCE, and that there only needs to be one set of re-titlings (or redirects) to ensure consistency across English Wikisource.

In the linked user talk disscussion, concern was also raised about the use of an "Act # of YYYY (India)" form for Indian primary legislation , on the basis that although able to link uniquely, a title of that form wasn't necessarily what potential searchers would be familiar with. I'd also note that many earlier items of UK legislation also have A regnal, Chapter form, which although identifying stuff uniquely, might not be how researches find relevant items.

My view currently was that United Kingdom acts should be suffixed (United Kingdom) to disambig them from Indian ones suffixed "(India)" and so on..

Hence you'd have:-

(Note: In the latter the Suffix might be considered redundant but is included for completeness.)

It would also be nice to have a consistent rule about when to use a Comma before the Year, for Acts passed in various Jurisdictions

So I'm opening this disscussion in the hope that someone can sort out :-

  • Consistent titling/linking guidelines.
  • Document such guidelines.
  • Update the {{short-title}} series of templates accordingly.
  • Check for existing linked items, and update links accordingly.

The eventual goal being ONE consistent and logical approach. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Read later[edit]

is there any way i can add pages to some place to read them later on other devices if there is pleas tell me and if not then tell me so that i can make one it would be nice to save pages you like to read them later on all the devices your account is logged in unsigned comment by Zia-ur-Rehman Rehmanii (talk) .

@Zia-ur-Rehman Rehmanii: You can make a book at Special:Book and choose whichever text you want to save and read later or print out as a PDF. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
yes but that would be not as efficient as a link to that page saved in your account like a bookmark
eg. you can save it on your computer and read it in your tablet or mobile just mark the page and it is synced into all your devices @Zia-ur-Rehman Rehmanii:
@Zia-ur-Rehman Rehmanii: You can save it at User:Zia-ur-Rehman Rehmanii/Book. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
do you mean save for offline reading if you do then it would not be synced into all your devices and if you mean a bookmark into the browser then some browsers do sync bookmark but there are these other browser which do not sync them and that's the problem
oh sorry i dint see the last part but any how that would save it like a book and that's not what you would want like massing up Wikisource just for your own benefit so that you can read the page later i just want to save the link for it so that later when i click the link i am directed to the page just like that no making useless books and massing up the Wikisource unsigned comment by Zia-ur-Rehman Rehmanii (talk) .
@Zia-ur-Rehman Rehmanii: You can save for offline reading as a PDF or you can make it on the Web and bookmark it. You can do both. It's not a problem to make user books--it's a feature. Sorry, I'm not sure about what you mean by syncing links. Firefox has a feature like this so you may want to use that browser. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sir i don't think that your are getting my point lets say for example that you want to save a page to read it later in your mobile or tablet so if you save it like a book you would generally loss the link to that page itself so i just want to make it a bookmark so when i open Wikisource in my mobile or tablet there is a notification saying hay you have just bookmarked a page want to read it and when i click that link it redirects my browser to that page itself by its link not to a saved PDF file or something like that because that way i will not b able to see the categorys below the page and the tools available for simple page not for pdf files or books

Does your browser have bookmarks? If so, you can save that bookmark, and add a hashtag for the page number when you save, such as "#45" to the end of the page location to take you back to page 45. To make this portable, save the link on your user page. For example: Cape Cod (1865) Thoreau/The Plains of Nauset#45. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Well thank you all but i think i have founded my solution somewhere else i just gonna ma a suggestion on phabricator for something like this or i will make an extension for it thanks again

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Zia-ur-Rehman Rehmanii: the download/print options (left sidebar) available for every work allow you to save the work in a format for you to read offline (epub/mobi/pdf/...) We prefer those over the default Special:Book, though we left the default in place. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    And if you are on mobile technology then you should be getting those icons which you should be able to bookmark. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)