From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Sources for Australian works[edit]

If anyone's interested I've found some sources for Australian works at Project Gutenberg Australia and Kathleen.wright5 22:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extreme caution is required when taking works from PG-au, as they are usually posted to PG-au because they are public domain in Australia, but not public in the USA, and so cant be hosted on Wikisource, which is located in the USA. I have not seen before. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jayvdb and I have started the proofread of the month project. The purpose of this project is to help improve the quality of the text on Wikisource. This is particularly helpful for text that have OCR text like a lot of our Djvu files. Each month the community will select one text to be proofread and hopefully we can completely proofread the text in that amount of time. We would love to have community input on the PotM for August. --Mattwj2002 06:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent idea. Should probably go on the main page for increased visibility.--T. Mazzei 21:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Hopefully this gets well off the ground and we can start having more sources for our Text of the Month slot.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It sounds like a good idea. However, problems have already arisen. Psychless 01:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ACLU v. NSA Opinion has been promoted to featured status, and is scheduled to be on the main page on August 2008. I uploaded the original PDF file from to Commons (see image). It is scheduled to appear on the Main Page on August 2008, the second anniversary of the judicial opinion. - Mtmelendez 15:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The pagination of this article is currently incomplete, with one week until it hits FA status. User Jmcneill inserted marks to show the ends of the first two pages of the 44 page source material in May, and user Michael D. Sullivan suggested it would be better to increment the numbers and show the beginning of new pages, rather than the ending of the previous. If possible I would like to have the page unlocked for an hour or so to insert the other 42 pagination marks, which can then be incremented if Mr. Sullivan's suggestion is preferred. Theophobic 21:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have unprotected it.--BirgitteSB 11:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I'll be done shortly.Theophobic 18:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are we even retaining the pagination in the first place? It's a fairly arbitrary division of a text, we don't do it for more than 99% of our texts, and it's ugly.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I can understand why people would want pagination, I certainly prefer the sort of pagination we generally use with the ProofreadPage extension (i.e. Early Settlers Along the Mississippi). I am leaving the text unprotected for now.--BirgitteSB 23:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Starting about 75% of the way down the page, Talk:ACLU v. NSA Opinion#Fine point comments there is a discussion about pagination for this text. I agree with both of you in that it probably is ugly. However, that is a separate issue for which I don't have a quick solution. But, pagination is probably desirable. This is because of the enhanced respect we would get from those who are familiar with using the usual legal sources such as the Lexis and Westlaw databases. In a long document like this one, being able to cross reference passages to check exact meanings is valuable. I found other WS court opinions that also use pagination.

The styles [114], [p114], [*114] or [*114] seem to be the ones from which to choose. The style that Birgitte recommends, Early Settlers Along the Mississippi is quite beautiful. But it probably lacks the specific, character by character accuracy that legal readers are accustomed to reading.

I tried looking for guidance in other WS legal text opinions, but there doesn't seem to be any format that is consistent. I haven't found any other WS court opinions that have reached any kind of honored status.

Is now a good time to change the page title to ACLU v. NSA (District Court opinion), or should this wait until after the August promotion period? There seems to be a consensus that my last title selection is uncommonly wrong.Jmcneill2 04:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have set up a transcription project in case anyone wants to attempt to migrate this to pagescans before it is featured: Index:ACLU v. NSA Opinion (August 17, 2006), US District Court, East-Michigan.djvu. --John Vandenberg (chat) 10:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minor template upgrade[edit]

This is relatively minor, but I've improved {{wikipediaref}} with {{wikipediarefb}} ('b' standing for 'BASEPAGENAME'). Now, if one is adding a Wikipedia excerpt from article 'example' from Wikipedia for Wikisource page 'example', one merely will place {{Wikipediarefb}} rather than {{Wikipediaref|example}}, because {{BASEPAGENAME}} is already inherent in {{wikipediarefb}}. This could prove useful for heavy loads of new texts and other such overhauls as it will eliminate at least one element of the time consumption. I only posted it here so that people could be aware of its creation. Cheers, —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem with this template is that it leaves the impression that we want to be tied to an extract from Wikipedia. This discourages any change to the notes, and that cannot be a good thing. Eclecticology 21:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1911 Copyright Act[edit]

The 1911 Copyright Act is one of the most important British laws for the purposes of Wikisource; it dictates the copyright of many works we deal with, underpins the copyright framework of all Commonwealth countries, and enabled these jurisdictions to write their own copyright laws. As yet we dont have a copy of it. A while ago I set up two transcription projects for them, but never advertised them, so here we are:

John Vandenberg (chat) 12:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links to Australian Copyright Act 1968 and Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000[edit]

Here is a link to the Australian Copyright Act 1968 - Australian Copyright Act 1968 - Australasian Legal Information Institute Here is a link to the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 - Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 - Australasian Legal Information Institute Kathleen.wright5 01:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New internal Wikimedia account[edit]

This is a role account associated with - and is officially sanctioned to be used here. It is above all community norms. --Officewiki-internal1 14:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have blocked this account, pending clarification on the user talk page. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur with John's action. Eclecticology 15:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkuser found a pile of other abusive accounts on the same IP. See Wikisource:Administrator's noticeboard# --John Vandenberg (chat) 00:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good Catch, Great Call Jeepday (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Add PDF download option[edit]

I think we should add a PDF download option like Wikibooks has for some of it's books. This should probably be for texts that are proofread or otherwise ready to be re-published. If we do this, we need to add a template similar to this. What does everyone think of this idea and how should we go about doing it if we do? --Mattwj2002 03:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've thought about this before, and I think it would be a great idea if we can get it to work. There are some problems with the dash-of-pepper tool. Most notably, it only works with single page works (as far as I know). It also needs to create just one title for the work and add some margins, among other things. Essentially, we need a special version of the tool for Wikisource.
In regard to which works should have it, I think just recommending only thoroughly proofread works have it will be fine. We could add a category to the template to keep track of works that have a PDF. I'm not sure how we will make sure all of the PDFs stay up-to-date.
If we can get this to work, I think it will help us to compete with Project Gutenberg, because their main advantage is having offline copies. And what's more, we will be able to have pretty offline copies. Psychless 02:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have started a prototype template in the Sandbox and need some help. Template:Sandbox/PDF_version. We need to be able to define the name of the PDF. Any help would be greatly appreciated. --Mattwj2002 03:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How's this? Psychless 17:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC) --->Reply[reply]
I like that. I moved it to {{PDF version}} so that I can start using it.--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 15:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't mind a big template if we only do large texts where this would be on the page of contents. If we are doing all texts in including single poems, then I would rather see a small template that fits into the header. WE also should give some warning that the template is sending you to a seperate wiki for the download ( maybe simply add "froms Commons"). The real problem with this idea being very useful right now is the lack of large texts 100% proofread. But I have no objection with people playing around with this, I imagine the idea will gain more interest as we have more texts proofread.--BirgitteSB 03:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added a parameter "mode=slim" to the template for the small display.--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, new editor here. (Well, have been at Wikipedia for awhile, but new here.) I would really like to be able to download this pdf copy of the regulation cited in John Kerry's discharge papers: [1]. It just seems like a really useful link.

Is it possible? I'm not very tech-savvy, so am hoping there's something simple out there. Thanks. --EECEE 23:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • As somebody who adds primarily non-fiction, non-literature texts; many times our source documents are PDFs - so this would be a very useful tool since they are "proofread" in the sense we're working with the PDF files released by w:JTF-GTMO or the w:Department of State to create our WS copies. Being able to quickly mirror the PDFs to Commons, and then have a link in the header to "download PDF" would be much appreciated. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unknown translators[edit]

Hello, I added a parameter "not mentioned" to the translator field of the Header template, for the cases where we have have an old translation (pre-1923) which does not mention the name of translator. Yann 22:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometimes "not known" would be more appropriate. Many of these older publications never identified the translator since it was a collective effort of the editorial staff. Editors of the time often treated translators, editors and illustrators as hired personnel who never had copyright in their own work. If an original author renewed the copyright, he had no right to renew the illustrations added by a publisher's employee. Eclecticology 18:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought about that, but the "unknown" parameter was already used, but not mentioned in the documentation. And "unknown" is not precise enough: we don't know if it means unknown to us or in the original edition. Yann 14:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


One of the selections on the Gadgets tab of Prefereences is "Preload useful templates such as header2 and textinfo (Firefox only, report bugs to Remember the dot)". Should that be changed to from "header2" to "header"? Jeepday (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed the problem.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good, thank you :) Jeepday (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright tags for anonymous works[edit]

We do not have any copyright tags for anonymous works here, nor do we have something like commons:Template:PD-because. I would like to suggest adding something like commons:Template:Anonymous work. As different countries have different rules, I would like to suggest allowing write-in in the new template, such as 50 or 70 years after publication.--Jusjih 02:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that's a good idea.—Giggy 03:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the ongoing confusion regarding the rule of shorter term in the U.S., there is doubt whether something being PD in another country makes it PD in the US. see WS:COPYVIO#Statute_Of_The_Primeiro_Comando_da_Capital for an instance of this doubt.
In principle I like the idea of adding more templates, however I would prefer to have a template for each jurisdiction, or at least a parameter indicating which country's laws apply, for two reasons. 1) laws change over time, 2) we want the copyright act on Wikisource if at all possible. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding purge link to Index pages[edit]

For large Djvu projects, it seems the server lags behind once I mark pages under one of the page status buttons. After a do some pages I like to check back on my progress. I also tend to go back to pages to use text commands since formatting is consistent throughout the work, only to find red links at the work's index page. Could we add a Purge link in one of the areas of the main index page to avoid this? Thanks, - Mtmelendez 18:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See a related review at Help talk:Side by side image view for proofreading#Update Color, Jeepday (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I know, the "Pages" button/link to the left of the links to individual pages, purges the index. Suicidalhamster 12:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just add ?action=purge to the end of the page's URL (in the address bar near the top of the browser) and click Go; that purges the page. See also w:Wikipedia:Purge. —Giggy 12:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's also w:Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add purge to tabs; if you want (and if nobody else can/does) I can try and import that to here tomorrow (I need to get some sleep pretty soon and my javascript isn't that great so it might take me a while :-) —Giggy 12:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Suicidalhamster is right. Just click on the bluelinked "Pages:" Hesperian 12:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what I always did Giggy, but thanks. I see the purge link in Pages now. I should be more curious on all those blue links next time. Thanks to all! - Mtmelendez 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

retain line breaks in the proofreading output[edit]

The mediawiki code has always quietly merged consecutive lines into a single paragraph. This is fine and dandy as it means we can retain line breaks in the original without it affecting the readibility. There is one downside, in that when a page, such as Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 1 - p1-22.djvu/19 is viewed, there is no way to represent those line breaks. i.e. the line breaks are lost in the output. To get around this, I often proofread pages in edit mode, but that has other downsides.

I think the answer is to wrap each line with a <span>, so that stylesheets can override the default layout for these spans in the "Page:" namespace. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wikisource bots[edit]

Hi, see please oldwikisource:Scriptorium#Wikisource bots, some ideas for specialized sourcebots, thanks, -jkb- (cs.source) 17:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Standardize index linking[edit]

I suggest implementing {{indexes}} to standardize and simplify linking to work indexes (not the ProofreadPage indexes). We sometime use the "previous" parameter, but this provides incorrect metadata, does not easily allow linking to multiple indexes, and cannot be easily used if the previous parameter is already correctly used. The template fixes all these problems. For example:

 | title    = An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
 | author   = Adam Smith
 | section  = 
 | previous = 
 | next     = 
 | notes    = {{indexes|economic theory}} ''An Inquiry into the...

An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
by Adam Smith
 ← Indexes: economic theory
An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations is the magnum opus of the Scottish economist Adam Smith, published in 1776. It is a clearly written account of political economy at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and is widely (if perhaps incorrectly) considered to be the first modern work in the field of economics. The work is also the first comprehensive defense of free market policies.Excerpted from The Wealth of Nations on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

{admin} Pathoschild 23:08:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea. Do you envisage {{edition}} being placed before it, or after it? Irrespective of where we place it now, using this template will mean the template can be easily moved to a different place if we decide to revise the header layout. This will also simplify the usage of the previous & next fields. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it looks better when {{edition}} is placed first, but there's little difference:
{{edition}}{{indexes|economic theory}}
 ← Indexes: economic theory
{{indexes|economic theory}}{{edition}}
 ← Indexes: economic theory
{admin} Pathoschild 23:40:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Since it looks very unlikely that you would have anything linking from the right-hand side of the Indexes box, why not place {{edition}} there instead of above or below the box? It would look more compact, too. This could be easy to do if all of these header templates be handled by a single "main" header template. 52 Pickup 09:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{edition}} is a separate template; while we could integrate it into {{indexes}}, I don't think that would be very intuitive. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:38:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I really like this idea. I looked at the indexes template and saw that there were only three parameters. Is there no way to program this thing to have an arbitrary number of parameters (kind of like how an arbitrary number of categories are all put together in the blue box)?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately not; iteration syntax is a perennial request. We can easily throw in more parameters as needed, though. —{admin} Pathoschild 16:36:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think this is better solution than the use of the previous parameter for indices.--BirgitteSB 16:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Looking at what's included in "economic theory" this seems like something that would duplicate what is done by categories. A more intuitive use of the term "index" is for finding occurences of certain information within a book. At a broad level the search function does this across the entire site. A more interesting use of "index" might be for finding occurrences of a word or phrase in a book that has many wiki pages. Eclecticology 09:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This isn't a discussion about the indexes themselves; if you want to suggest changing or removing the current index system, I suggest splitting off a discussion about that. —{admin} Pathoschild 09:49:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    Strange that a discussion about indexes is not about indexes! Eclecticology 21:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Assuming a bot could then recognise all current works that say "|previous=[[Wikisource:" and update them, I agree it seems like a good idea. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Søren Kierkegaard 00:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A note that you'd want to incorporate the same thing into authorpage headers, so that Author:Bill Clinton can backlink to Wikisource:President of the United States, Author:Louis St. Laurent can backlink to Wikisource:Prime Minister of Canada and Author:Sylvester II can backlink to Wikisource:Popes. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Irving Berlin 21:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While it seems reasonable to expect that all the US presidents and Canadian prime ministers will be authors of something it seems that doing this for all the popes, and hypothetically setting up author pages for all of them is a little over the top. If one did write something there would be no proplem to having Category:Pope. A rock-bottom condition for having an author page should be that that individual wrote something. That prospect is not evident for popes from the dark ages.
With the exception of Steven, who died before taking office, I don't think there's a single Pope who didn't release an encyclical letter, muchless papal bulls or texts written before they assumed the papacy - and at the very least, works written about the person. Ultimately the indexes work only for finite lists, like "Kings of England", "Popes" or such - and "Novelists" would probably not succeed as an index. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Irving Berlin 21:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For song lyrics, may I suggest an optional parameter for composers of corresponding melodies?--Jusjih 03:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot flag request for Albamhandaebot[edit]

  • Bot name : User:Albamhandaebot
  • Operator : ko:User:알밤한대
  • Programming Language : Pywikipedia via SVN
  • Function :interwiki linking
  • Botstatus on other wikisource : ko
  • Botstatus on other wikipedia (Albambot) : ar, bg, ca, cs, da, de, el, en, es, eo, et, fi, fr, he, hr, hu, it, ja, ko, lt, nl, nn, no, pt, ro, ru, simple, sk, sl, sr, sv, tr, uk, vo, zh

Thanks! --Albamhandae 06:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How have you adapted the interwiki linking script to work on Wikisource without causing the normal problems?--BirgitteSB 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know. Bot is just operated very well. Would you please give an examples for bot's normal problems? --Albamhandae 12:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This still does not explain what it does. While I would myself still find the term "normal problems" to be cryptic, that still does not relieve you of the burden of establishing the bot utility and safety. Eclecticology 21:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the normal problems involve creating interwiki links between different works with the same name, presumably mentioned because it claims bot status on only one wikisource, but many wikipedias, where this isn't a problem. Here, that's why interwiki bots generally run without a flag. -Steve Sanbeg 21:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it is running the interwiki code in Pywikipedia SVN, then it does have the standard problems and can not be run unattended.
The standard problem is that not all links are equal. For example, linking a Korean bible to the Latin makes sense, and the KJV to the Latin also makes sense, but it doesnt follow that the KJV should link a Korean bible.
The most practical way to "automate" interwikis on Wikisource is to build a blacklist of pages the bot shouldnt touch, so we can add the complicated cases to the blacklist so these are only manipulated by hand. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good. At least I think I understand the problem. Nevertheless, I'm not sure that the "blacklist" technique will be helpful; it depends too much on people putting things on the list in the first place. For the Bible much will depend on some kind of translation tree. For other works we need to allow for the probability that the translated title may already have been occupied by the translation of an unrelated work by a different author. Eclecticology 03:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I think a blacklist may eventually be a workable solution, I think that not enough is yet known to compile one at present. The only reason we know the various Bibles will be messed up by the bot script is because they already has been messed up by a bot in the past. I don't think we know enough yet to predict what needs to be placed on the blacklist. I would rather see a soultion with some sort of author matching or some other way to confirm a connection betwwen the works. Or else have whitelist of human approved connections that the bot can go ahead with linking all the individual pages.--BirgitteSB 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. The general history and multitude of Bible versions and translations would make that example atypical and more complicated than anything else we might encounter. You're right to say that authors might be the best place to start getting a handle on the problem. Given that some important projects have abandoned the notion of an "Author:" namespace, the required solution will be more sophisticated than simply devising a bot that we can let run with our eyes shut. Eclecticology 21:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hot off the press: Help:Interlanguage links. I have included a sections on Bots. Have I missed anything? John Vandenberg (chat) 11:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My first general impression is positive. I'd probably have to give more thought to the details. Eclecticology 23:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sorry I've been so inactive lately - but I've found a new project. w:As-Sahab has been using a number of Western sites (including as a platform from which to publish files like the wills of the 9/11 hijackers and such. They have labelled the uploads as "Public Domain" which is enough proof of intention for my way of thinking - though I'm going to dual-license them between PD-Release and {{IEEPA}} which covers works by designated terrorist agencies whose ownership (including copyrights) are seized/blocked property in the United States. Zawahiri actually took questions last year, and responded to them -- if a similar opportunity comes up, I'd love to get official taperecorded words from the man himself, releasing it all into to the public domain just for posterity. But I think the status of these works is clear enough that I'm going to begin copying them to Wikisource for their historical importance. If I encounter any problems or requests from outside agencies, I'll keep you informed. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 20:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This all seems like a series of self-serving excuses for keeping the subject material. "Historical importance" alone does not override copyright. Someone's will is a personal document, so one can easily question what authority an organization to which he belonged had to put a personal document into the public domain. Some of ibn-Laden's works are claimed to be in the public domain because they were written when he was in Afghanistan when that country had not recognized copyright law. What evidence is there that any of the post invasion material was written while ibn-Laden was still in Afghanistan rather than being holed up somewhere in Pakistan? The right to "dual-license" does not vest in any Wikisourceror who does not have any ownership rights; indeed, a public domain claim is not a licence, but a recognition of a legal status that overrides any licence. Eclecticology 21:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure I even understand you, nor that you understand me. There are no "post-invasion materials" there, they are all from long before the attacks. The "right" to list two separate reasons something is not copyrighted has nothing to do with any Wikisorceror's "ownership rights", just like I could put both a PD-1923 and a PD-no-notice tag on a 1922 document that was published without copyright notice. Technically only one is necessary - but in case there are doubts about one, the other backs it up. And since the wills were clearly made as part of the employment terms of the hijackers with al-Qaeda, filmed by al-Qaeda and published by al-Qaeda - yes, al-Qaeda would be the owner of the tapes, not the individual men themselves. Please tone down your accusations. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 02:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm willing to ignore your false claim of accusations as simply being querulous. The shotgun approach of trying out a number of arguments in the hope that one of them will stick does not exactly inspire confidence in any of the arguments. The second argument does not create any certainty whatsoever; it is more likely to create confusion and obfuscation. The argument that the wills were part of some sort of employment contract is a novel one! There is nothing clear about any employment terms. A key ownership right is the right to license a writing, and there is no evidence that the authors of these notes granted any licence, or put them into the public domain. Eclecticology 17:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said, as-Sahab clearly licenses a number of their texts (including Zawahiri's press conference, a hijacker's will and others) as "PUBLIC DOMAIN" -- so your hope that simple repetition of "there is no evidence" is spurious at best, deliberately misleading at worst. I have said that I am assuming that an author who clearly labels a number of works as PD, and has never labelled any work as copyrighted should be assumed to be anti-copyright and those works without notice assumed to be PD -- but that I recognise that it would be better to get a blanket statement from as-Sahab. I'm not sure what's so novel about claiming that videos made as promotional material for your employer would be the property of your employer -- if you work at Burger King and they ask you to make the next "Safety training video" or you appear in a Burger King commercial -- who do you think has the right to decide how to license that video? I am not deciding how to license as-Sahab works, they have already clearly licensed a number of them as Public Domain -- all I am saying is that where they've licensed four out of five speeches as public domain, I'm going to make the assumption that the fifth speech which similarly has no signs of copyright - is also Public Domain. You're blathering on about how a 1998 letter which is public domain for two reasons in the United States, both because all material created by al-Qaeda is blocked property, including copyrights, under the terms of IEEPA (note that while it is currently public domain - if AQ is removed from the list in forty years, WS will want to revisit these texts) and because it was written in a country that lacks any copyright law. If you have specific concerns about a particular text, I suggest you visit them on the text's discussion page, rather than simply flailing around wildly claiming that everything seems to be topsy-turvy. Specific texts, specific complaints, specific talk pages. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 21:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And where is your evidence that Zawahiri (and others) granted the right to as-Sahab to put this material into the public domain? Following your "Burger King" example, the appearance of an employee in a publicly distributed video would likely be accompanied by a release signed by the employee; a training video produced solely for the internal use of the company, would not be considered as "published". That something was written, taped or filmed in a country without copyright laws is not determinative; if it were the absurd effect would be that anything written by a passing visitor to that country while he is there would not be copyrightable. The law where something is first published is what counts. One does not license anything into the public domain, because the public domain has nothing to do with licences. All you have to support your public domain claims is a series of dubious assumptions; contrariwise, the usual presumption is that something is protected unless the contrary is established such as by being too old or through some other legal exemption. The IEEPA reference makes no mention of copyrights or public domain, so bringing that red herring into the fray strikes me as nothing more than speculation about the effects of that law. Do you have any legal opinions to backup your contention? Eclecticology 22:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to recommend you familiarise yourself with w:as-Sahab before you continue. I'm open to hearing legitimate arguments, but "who says Zawahiri granted rights to as-Sahab..." is bordering on ridiculous. It would be like saying "Who says that a Presidential speech made from the White House is in commission of his duties as a federal employee?". And yes, a training video produced for Burger King would be considered to be "published" by all legal standards. I'm really not interested in running around in circles chasing each other's tails. I just posted this as a head's up to let people know - and as I said, if you have specific problems, feel free to work them through constructively. But "al-Qaeda members making videos for al-Qaeda and having al-Qaeda publish them doesn't mean they're al-Qaeda's videos!" is really not accomplishing anything. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 02:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CSD G4[edit]

CSD G4 currently reads Redundant: Two versions of the same text on different pages, with no significant differences between them.

The current text of G4 allows duplicate pages to be deleted. If it isnt a copyvio, I dont see the benefit in hiding those edits from view. As a result, I never use this , as I prefer to redirect one page to another, keeping the history of both in full view.

Under this criteria, the main page of On the Westminster Confession of Faith, by Author:Archibald Alexander Hodge has just now been deleted. It was a table of contents, with the subpages as all red links. I've asked Kathleen.wright5 (talkcontribs) to clarify what it was a duplicate of, but this specific page isnt my concern.

Should we delete duplicates? What if both pages are years old, as is often the case?

I propose that we drop this CSD criteria, or alter it so that only inappropriately named duplicates are removed. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Typically it happens because the two versions use the two common names of the same poem, or capitalise things differently; either way it's very likely somebody looking for "Jabberwocky" is going to type "The_Jabberwocky" into the url, so it makes sense to make it a redirect rather than deleting it. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 06:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The criteria for speedy deletion allow deletion without discussion in clear cases, they don't set absolute rules about what must be deleted at all costs. If redirecting is appropriate (which isn't always the case), you're certainly free to do so. —{admin} Pathoschild 08:55:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that creating a redirect is often better than deleting. Yann 09:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We choose admins for having decent judgement, so ideally they'd apply it in cases like this one. Sometimes (like in the Jabberwocky example above), a redirect is a better idea. Other times (hypothetically: Waltzing Matilda and Whose is the jumbuck you've got in the tuckerbag? containing the same content... the latter is a line of the former but it's a very unlikely search term) a delete would probably be the way to go. I don't think saying "you should always (delete/redirect)" duplicates is the best idea. —Giggy 10:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the two texts have been evaluated as amounting to the same thing, with a few commas askew, or whatever, is there much value in keeping the alt page around? It muddies the water a bit. Certainly if the title of page 2 is reasonable, a redirect would be good, and that can be done either way. On the flip side, I don't see much harm in allowing a reasonable duplicate to lay about under a redirect, so in such cases not explicitly deleting seems a reasonable route. If a non-admin ever wants to move page 1 to the page 2 title, they won't be able to if there's a redirect with a history there. In the case of delete where a redirect was then created, said non-admin would be free to make the move. In the case of inappropriately named duplicates, one could move it to some appropriate but still alternate name… which I'm not advocating. Key here is good judgement and flexibility in applying the rules. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously, it is confusing to have duplicate pages. If you correct the text of one, how do you ensure that the other is also corrected? I see no harm in having plenty of redirects; they take little space and can be helpful.--Poetlister 18:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Just for the record, different editions like The Odyssey are not redundant and should be neither redirected nor deleted.) —{admin} Pathoschild 18:18:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
This issue came up a few weeks ago; I had pasted Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: A World that Stands as One off of; gave the full url as the edit summary. Some days later an anon created A World that Stands as One and I pointed this out to John, who redirected it. I just saved both copies and compared them using a tool. I smacked minor formatting differences between the two text, and when I'd finished that, I had two identical texts. The redirected one had unicode em dashes, while Obama's site didn't, so I then reworked the unredirected text to use {{}}. The redirected text also had angled quotes, if anyone wants to fuss with that.
I live in Bali where 'cold' is anything under 30°C. However, I used to make side money plowing snow; $2,000 a night for a big storm. Key to driving a plow is angling the blade to throw the snow aside. If you don't, it accumulates in front of you and impedes forward progress. So, while I don't see a lot of harm in burying a semi-duplicate text under a redirect (and I certainly see value in redirects at appropriate alternative titles), I see the duplicates as clutter that can serve as a time-suck for other editors down the road; time they could better spend.
It may be that Obama's speech should be at the other title; the longer form with the prefix is used on some of his other speeches and seems to be driven by the titles used on his site. I can't move it due the history under the redirect. Yes, keeping the alt page undeleted allows anyone to review the pesky differences, but that's been done already and the presence of the history prevents non-admins from performing actions such as moving over the redirect. Long-term admins may well have forgotten the annoyances that not having a mop entail. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I generally don't mind getting rid of speedy deletion rules. As someone has already said these deletions are a matter of judgement whether or not they come within one of the specified criteria. It's more important to give a clear traceable reason for some of these speedy deletions, and to strongly discourage just quickie adding an SD reference number. Eclecticology 05:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statute of Anne has been deleted as a dup of Copyright Act 1709 under this G4 again. I have restored it as it has a long history, and will be in caches and links across the Internet. At worst it should be tagged with {{dated soft redirect}}, but in this case I have tagged it with {{merge}} as there are formatting differences between the two. It is fantastic that Kathleen is finding these dups; we need some clarity on how they should be handle so she knows what to do with them. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. The formatting differences bring up some interesting questions, Copyright Act 1709 seems to more closely reflect standards for writing statutes in 1709. This meant long sentences which could only be parsed with difficulty. Statute of Anne gives a more modern approach to the same text, where sectioning and numbering makes the identical text more readable. See my comments above at #Category:Copyright law. Eclecticology 07:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other discussions[edit]

Something from Wikiversity[edit]

The pages linked to from Wikiversity:Airplane_Flying_Handbook were created at Wikiversity. It appears they are just duplications of the government publication found here. An interested user here may be interested in transwiki-ing it or adding it here. I'm sure itching to nominate for deletion off Wikiversity. Emesee 20:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]



I've written a few simple scripts to assess how many works & authors we have on wikisource. Using simplistic algorithms we have 2610 author pages, and 26130 "works" which excludes disambiguation and sub-pages. In the list there are many works that begin with "M" which are encyclopedia articles which would typically be placed as subpages, however Eclecticology (talkcontribs) is doing things different - I should be able to improve the code to deal with this by looking at the headers.

User:Jayvdb/Works with subpages is the current set of works with more than one page, which is a smaller page to look at, and the results can be sorted. Works with more than 500 subpages are:

  1. Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913) 11281
  2. Ante-Nicene_Fathers 7443
  3. Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_II 7094
  4. Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_I 5286
  5. The_New_Student's_Reference_Work 2304
  6. 1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica 2296
  7. Journal_of_Discourses 1455
  8. Complete_Encyclopaedia_of_Music 1436
  9. The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda 1364
  10. A_Short_Biographical_Dictionary_of_English_Literature 1359
  11. The_Rig_Veda 1038
  12. Dictionary_of_Christian_Biography_and_Literature_to_the_End_of_the_Sixth_Century 958
  13. The_City_of_God 689
  14. Littell's_Living_Age 582
  15. United_States_Code 560

John Vandenberg (chat) 14:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At WS:S(2008-04#100K), GrafZahl reports on February 12, 2008 that TalBot arrived at 24367 unique page titles. The algorithms used may be different; mine requires that subpages are named "<title>/...", which ensures that pages starting with "A Boy" are all counted.

Eventually, I would like to see Special:Statistics report this figure as well as the default, and also report the number of author pages as they are a good metric as well. For a start, a nightly bot could compute the number of works and authors and update a protect page that is transcluded into Special:Statistics. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Due to some improvements, bug fixes, and pages up to "M" being groups together, we are down to 25824 separate works. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The definition of a sub-page is rather arbitrary. With a collection of poems or short stories, you could treat each as a separate page or as a sub-page of the collection.--Poetlister 14:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Killjoy. ResScholar 04:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the other hand, multi-volume works like Transactions of the Linnean Society of London are lumped together here, making this potentially an underestimate not an overestimate. Hesperian 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can solve that by creating a "dab template" on the bottom of those pages. It could state something like "This page is a user created volume index. Please add missing volumes, issues, or articles that are public domain." John Vandenberg (chat) 15:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are now at 27,323 "works", which means we have added roughly 1500 works since May 6. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] has been updated! John Vandenberg (chat) 15:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One stat I would like to see is how many pages out of the 112,000 mainsapce pages transclude text from the page namespace. It would be a good indication of how good the proofreading system is at improving the whole of wikisource. Is it easy to do? Suicidalhamster (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ew[edit] says "The preferred image formats are .jpg for photographic images", is there a good reason for that? I'd much prefer to "encourage" people to use a w:lossless format - why advise using a subpar format, especially one that confound OCR readers? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 18:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I would not include scans for OCR in "photographic images". Scans should be saved as PNG, and uploaded in DJVU format if possible. Yann 18:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know you can edit Mediawiki space ;) Just change it to what advice you like and leave a note here with the new wording. If someone has a problem with your choices I am sure a proper discussion will get underway. If no discussion follows the rewrite, then everyone agrees with your recommendations more or less. --BirgitteSB 02:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


One-page and PDF versions of book[edit]

Is there a way to get a one-page version of a book, thus enabling searching of the book using a browser's search function? And is there any way to create a PDF version? Thanks. --Dan Polansky 12:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your question was posted quite a while ago... but it seems to me that what you want is to:
  1. Be able to search the entirety of a book for specific words, and
  2. Be able to create a copy of a book as a PDF file.
All of this can be done, but it probably isn't as easy as you hope. First, the best way to search an entire book, the way wikisource is right now is to do a google search, something like [search terms][name of page with underscores in place of spaces]. For example, I tested it to search for Uncas in Sketch of Connecticut, Forty Years Since with this search term: uncas site:,_Forty_Years_Since/. I know that you were hoping to have an easier way to do this, but right now there simply is not a way. It seems like transclusion could be used to create a page which transcludes the text of all the subpages onto a single page, and I believe this would be sometimes useful, but right now it is not done.
Second, to create a copy as a PDF file, there are a few possible approaches. The best-looking approach would probably be to copy/paste the entire book into, MS Word, or another text editor capable of the appearance you want (for an entire book on letter-size paper, you might want two columns). Then, to make the file into a PDF just get PDF Creator from this link at When you install, change the name of the printer it creates to something like Print to a PDF File. I usually uncheck the 'PDF Creator Toolbar for "Internet Explorer and Firefox"' option, too. The next time you open your word processor, click print and one of your printers will be Print to a PDF File. Choosing this option and selecting where to save, you will have made a PDF from the text that looks like the word processor content. Good luck. --Mkoyle 23:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikibooks has a Print Version Gadget which looks like something we could replicate here. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quotation marks as first letter of the alphabet[edit]

The page has titles of various poems, in alphabetical order. Unfortunately, it doesn't start with A; it starts with a large double quotation mark, presumably because the first two poems have their titles in quotation marks, and then it proceeds to the Capital A. It looks a bit silly, and seems a classic example of something that a machine would do and a human wouldn't. Is there any way to tell the machine not to count quotation marks as the first letter of the alphabet? Stratford490 22:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you want to use the {{DEFAULTSORT}} magic word. Something like {{DEFAULTSORT:title of poem without quotes}} will sort it correctly.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. How simple! It worked! Stratford490 23:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other alternative would be to leave out quotation marks from article titles altogether, as in On Sitting Down to Read King Lear Once Again. Here the older approach would have been to us quotation marks around "King Lear", but it might now be rendered in italics. We cannot expect that the proper convention will always be followed, and it may not always be clear. Article titles do best to transcend these possible variations. Of course the name that appears in the title parameter of the heading should retain the proper punctuation or italicization. Eclecticology 21:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. There's no real need for it in page names, what's important is that the title in the "header2" template follows it. - Mtmelendez 22:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If an author consistently use quotation marks for some (but not all) titles in most editions; I would want us to do the same. If a certain edition puts quotations around every poem title I see less obligation for us to use them in those cases.--BirgitteSB 03:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that we can presume that kind of consistency on the part of authors, publishers and readers. Shakespeare's own King Lear should appear without quotation marks, but a critic's essay about the work with the same title should appear with them. It can't be assumed that the reader knows how the punctuation was treated if he searches for the critic's work; he may not know that a poem with a ship's name properly followed the convention. Stripping the punctuation from the article title gets around that problem. Putting it back in the header parameter informs the reader of the correct reading of the title.
Using redirects or the "DEFAULTSORT" template are awkward and artificial solutions that require knowing the special techniques. We can't expect readers or newbies to know and apply them. Eclecticology 11:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. Every authorized edition I have seen of "Fuzzy-Wuzzy" uses quotes. I don't know that I have ever seen it without them, but with the internet full of sloppy trancscriptions of poetry I am sure you can find one. The redirect works just as well going from no qoutes to the title with quotes. And defaultsort solves the other issue. I don't care how critic's essays are treated, but poets actually use punctuation with intention and we should follow their decisions.--BirgitteSB 13:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. With things like Google Books and it should be easy enough to find whether a poem consistently has quotation marks around the title. For those that do, we should add them, just like we add other punctuation marks to the names of pages as well.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Fuzzy-Wuzzy" may be somewhat of a straw man because it is so well known. The redirect already exists as well. In general we can't assume that a general reader knows about the punctuation, or that he has accessed Google Books (full texts of which are not universally available) or Other punctuation marks can have their own problems. Some titles are in two lines with the second line in a smaller font serving as a natural disambiguator. How do you propose handling that? You seem to ignore that I do support taking these into account in the header. Eclecticology 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not a straw man, it is a poem that begins with a punctuation mark. (A straw man would be to suggest your position would have us re-title The Jungle Book to Jungle Book simply to avoid having to use defaultsort) I don't quite understand what a title with two lines has to do with transcribing punctuation so I won't follow that tangent. My position is that we should title poems as the author did in both the page title and the header while making redirects to the page from simplified titles and using defaultsort with simplified titles. There is no reason not to be accurate when we have tools such as redirects and defaultsort--BirgitteSB 14:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In essence a straw man argument is a generalisation from an easily supported specific situation to support a less obvious situation. The strongest argument for suppressing "The" from titles is really uncertainty about whether it belongs in a specific title. Some long-lived periodicals have not been consistent with its use in their titles. As for the two line title, a line break can be just as much a form of punctuation as the comma, colon or m-dash that is often substituted for it.
I fully agree that the internet is full of sloppy transcriptions. There's nothing we can do about that. The question then becomes, "How can we best make those errors not matter?" We cannot assume that the fly-by passive reader knows anything about the conventions that we have adopted. Eclecticology 19:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A straw man is a mistatement of the opposite view to argue against something that wasn't said by anyone but yourself; the closest I see to that is the comment about multi-line titles, since nobody suggested making software changes to support more titles than we do now. If the software can handle a title correctly, then we should use the functionality; if someone might not know the correct title, we should use redirects. I don't see how we'd even get a coherent title policy if we required the title to be the result of some series of transformations on the published title. -Steve Sanbeg 17:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't particularly intend to play semantic games over whether the logical fallacy that I was describing should properly be called a straw man or something else. If you have a better name for the fallacy in question feel free to offer it. Apart from that it's difficult to divine what software changes you are opposing if nobody suggested any in the first place. Nobody is suggesting multi-line article titles, but such titles can be accommodated in the headers. Eclecticology 07:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Not feeling like speculating too much,

what do you believe is copyright status of these documents? Nikola Smolenski 20:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are usually considered ineligible for copyright; in the U.S. {{PD-GovEdict}} should cover them. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you reject Kosovo's independence Serbian law would be valid for this. If Kosovo is to be recognized as an independent country, I doubt that they have yet had time to subscribe to the Berne Convention or any other international convention. Eclecticology 21:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True. My point is that in the U.S., works of this nature are not consider eligible for copyright, irrespective of who the authors are.
A similar issue has been raised recently at Wikisource talk:Constitutional documents#Sealand removed.
John Vandenberg (chat) 22:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait. Are these two English texts original? If not originally in English while Kosovo does not officially speak English, who translated them? It seems that {{PD-GovEdict}} does not cover privately made translations.--Jusjih 03:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In several cases, treaties signed by the parent nation have been considered binding on a nation splitting from them; I suspect unless Kosovo specifically wants to get out of the Berne Convention, it will be considered a member with all rights and responsibilities.--Prosfilaes 23:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting Mjbot bot flag[edit]

I would like to request a bot flag for my new bot Mjbot. I will only be doing tasks the community approves of. If you notice there are any problems, please let a message on my talk page immediately and I will fix it. I will always monitor what the bot does and will not run it unattended. I will fix any problems when they occur. --Mattwj2002 04:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support. I have been helping Matt; he initially did some bot work under his own account, and as he is now uploading djvu pages using the bot that I created, he has created a bot account mjbot (talkcontribs) because we dont want hundreds of new pages polluting the RC feed. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • support ThomasV 05:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Seems like a good idea and a competent op; support. —Giggy 07:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support had a look through its contributions which seem fine to me, and good for edits which extract text from djvu to be removable from recent changes. Suicidalhamster 14:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MJbot has been given a bot flag.--BirgitteSB 21:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The proofreading buttons found at the bottom of pages currently put different notes in front of the editing than Wikisource:Text quality would suggest as appropriate. Currently they are Incomplete, Not formatted, Complete and formatted, and Proofread. There may be a historical reason for this, but new editors may be misled by the descriptions to believe that if they have personally proofread a text they should use the 100% button.

Perhaps it would be better to change these descriptors to more closely match the information at Wikisource:Text quality... perhaps Incomplete, Not formatted, Proofread and corrected, Proofread by several users. --Mkoyle 01:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've copied the text over from template:textquality, so that should be more consistent. -Steve Sanbeg 14:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need help with something[edit]

How do I create a new text or poem or something? Can u give me the outline? --Maltdragon 10:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Maltdragon. I saw your question and I wanted to point you to a page to help with adding text. Hopefully this helps. --Mattwj2002 11:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


please give definition of the word "hutah" and where it may be found unsigned comment by (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2008.

This might not be the best place for such a question, but in an attempt to be helpful I will tell you that 'hutah' is not found in the Oxford English Dictionary online and is, therefore, most likely either 1. not an English word or 2. a made-up word. To really help you, someone would need the context where you discovered the word (or the name of the book or page where you found it). Since your request appears to be the only place on wikisource where 'hutah' appears, neither I nor anyone else could truly answer your question. Just as a sample of the random silliness to be found, though, you will find at this Ewok site that hutah means lizard in Ewok.
Working on the idea that you weren't looking for something in Ewok, maybe this article about the Temple Mount will answer your question. More commonly spelled Huttah, it is Arabic for 'Remission' (and probably a zillion other English words which is why you need to find somewhere where people speak Arabic or whatever language you're looking for to know what all the meanings of your word are). Hope that's helpful. Good luck. --Mkoyle 18:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is anybody sure that this is a serious request? Eclecticology 06:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I assume these come from the feel free to ask questions at the scriptorium blurb on top of the main page; it would be nice if we keep clarify the types of questions we're referring to without messing up the tone of that. -Steve Sanbeg 16:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bottom-headers, cont[edit]

Has anyone noticed that the footers are not displaying when the page has a translunded text? Example no footer Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc/Book II/Chapter 18; example with footer Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc/Conclusion. Can anyone fix it? Jeepday 20:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done; an error in another part of the CSS aborted before the footer display; it seems OK now. -Steve Sanbeg 16:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is still not displaying for me currently Jeepday (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My bad; anyway, the problem is with template:option. I'm not sure how to fix it, but it doesn't seem to be in use, so I disabled it. -Steve Sanbeg 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems to have fixed it, thanks :) Jeepday (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks for pointing out this problem. The problem came from the Page template, it is fixed now. I restored the optiontext code Common.js. ThomasV 06:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strange center appearance[edit]

Can anyone explain why the <center> function does not line up properly at [2]? I was trying to proofread it and struggled to figure out a way to make the text line up. Finally it looked okay when I removed all newline characters and used <br/> in stead. Just wondering what is causing that and how to avoid it. Thanks in advance, --Mkoyle 22:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've noticed that myself, and for the life of me can't seem to figure it out.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've seen the same problem. I believe it is caused by the whole page being wrapped in a div class="pagetext". This class apparently includes a style="text-indent:2em", and it is the interaction of that style with align="center" that causes the misalignment. Essentially, the first line of each paragraph is indented, so the centre alignment of lines that Mediawiki treats at the first line of a paragraph, differs from the alignment of subsequent lines in that paragraph. This problem can be overcome by inserting blank lines instead of br (so that every line is treated as the first line of a paragraph), or by starting a sequence of br-separated lines with a br (so that no line is treated as the first line of a paragraph). Personally, though, I'd rather this was solved by removing indentation from the pagetext class; I think this is wrong because it inserts indentation into the page that disappears when the page is transcluded. Hesperian 00:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If no one objects, I'll make the edit.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If your plan is to remove the disappearing indentation to make the correction, I support. Jeepday (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can a bot do this?[edit]

I have a couple of requests for a bot to work on the subpages of Alabama State Constitution of 1901:

  • The amendment titles should be boldfaced to match the official website (May not be worth it?)
  • Many amendments refer to other amendments: Can these be automatically linked to the amendments they refer to?

I'm asking about a bot to do it because it would be next to impossible to do it by hand (IMAO). Thanx, 20:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My bot skills are limited to AWB, so solely from that perspective, I don't think it's possible. I think Pathoschild is the best person to ask. —Giggy 01:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quadell's a botter too. Hesperian 01:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If someone can clearly specify what is required, a request should go on WS:BOTR. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added bold tags around the names. Finding the links could be tricker, so that should be more clearly specified on BOTR. -Steve Sanbeg 02:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Versions without end[edit]

It turns out I will likely never get a chance to finish copying The Swiss Family Robinson from the edition that I was using. I have, however, found a new edition: . Can one just be overwritten by the other? Note, however, this new version is scanned pages.

Finally, what is to be done for a book like this, with innumerable (wildly) different versions of the same work with the same title?

Thanx, 00:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ideally, one of the editions should be selected. We can then upload it to Wikisource and set up a Transcription project. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much easier would be the Project Gutenberg edition. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCain and Author:Barack Obama 02:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Easier, certainly, but I find that the PG editions often lack enough information to even compare with some identified printed edition, whether on-line of in paper copy. The version may be a more practical option, but not to the extent that it must be given primacy. Defining a particular edition as definitive or authoritative may require more scholarship than any of us are prepared to undertake. All significant variations are important to the evolution of a literary work, and resolving them is difficult enough in something as short as a poem. I've been working on some of these problems with the Kipling novel Kim, and it is not an easy problem. We need to look at this issue in very broad forward-looking terms. Eclecticology 07:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That gutenberg edition is this djvu, and the etext notes that a few pages are missing from the transcription. I am in the process of reducing the size of that DJVU so it can be uploaded to commons.
Also worth pointing out is that this djvu is available from Project Gutenberg, however the Gutenberg transcription is missing a paragraph on the first page of chapter 1, which isnt a good sign, but it is a start. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the problem with this novel: The "authoritative" edition would probably be the original on (In German) that Wyss did. We'd have to translate that (or find a free translation) after we found it (Also not easy). The real problem is that when it was published in English, it was modified significantly. This is the version that would probably be "definitive" in English, except that there have been so many different versions (And I can say from experience that they are NOT minor differences) that I don't think any one could be said to have had a meaningful plurality of distribution. We may just have to take (almost?) all of them... 22:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What makes a particular edition "authoritative" or "definitive"? Choosing one translation as more definitive than another requires a breach of NPOV. Whether one has been distributed more than another is of no consequence. Can we at least say that our German colleagues have settled the matter with regards to the original version? Past that, having our own wiki translation strikes me as a preferred option. Eclecticology 00:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I replied to your comments above: "The version may be a more practical option, but not to the extent that it must be given primacy. Defining a particular edition as definitive or authoritative may require more scholarship than any of us are prepared to undertake.", which suggests it may be possible (Although I doubt it's actually possible here). Anyway, I'm not sure the original (German, Wyss) version even exists anymore. 23:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A German edition is here. Im not sure if it is the original. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is difficult to believe that all copies of the 1812 German language original have disappeared, but may be our colleagues at de:Wikisource could help us with that question. Eclecticology 01:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Transcription project Index:The Swiss Family Robinson - 1851.djvu has been created; the text can be found at Project Gutenberg. If someone wants to work on a different edition, I'll happily assist setting it up if a matching set of pagescans and transcribed text can be identified. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In order to avoid the NPOV issue Eclecticology stated above, I'd argue for including any and all versions and editions of a famous work, so long as they are duly identified and if they differ from one another. Exact duplicates printed in different years should be avoided, but marked appropriately in the standing work's page by including the publication years. Versions which may differ in wording, translation, or which includes new content (such as images, prefaces, postscripts), should all be included and linked to an appropriate disambiguation or "home" page so to speak. This provides the most information and sources to the reader as reasonably possible. - Mtmelendez 13:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Straying a little bit, The Owl and the Pussy-Cat has been tagged with {{merge}} to The Owl and the Pussycat which is almost identical, but there are slight differences. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This stray moggy raises an interesting point about the role of anthologies. In a sense the material in anthologies is as valid as that which is found anywhere else, and if it's the only available version of a poem it will have to do. I believe that the author's own version should take precedence over inclusion in a later anthology, but how important is it to document any new changes that arise in such later anthologies? Eclecticology 00:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DjVu not displaying next page arrow[edit]

For some reason several pages like Page:Poems (Owen, 1920).djvu/37 doe not display a next page arrow, while some pages in the same set do display the arrow Page:Poems (Owen, 1920).djvu/4. Why would that be? Jeepday (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No idea. The arrows stop at Page:Poems (Owen, 1920).djvu/28 if this helps anyone. —Giggy 02:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I Just surfed through the arrow comes and goes, it will be on one page, then not on the next one. No arrow Page:Poems (Owen, 1920).djvu/38, Arrow Page:Poems (Owen, 1920).djvu/39, no arrow Page:Poems (Owen, 1920).djvu/40. I did not notice a pattern. Jeepday (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it is because there is a direct link to the page in the index (in the table of contents). I will need to fix that. in the meantime you should use a link template ThomasV 07:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I was the one to put the table of contents onto the index page, so apologies for messing thinks up. I had no idea! Suicidalhamster 21:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have tried to start fixing it at Page:Poems (Owen, 1920).djvu/17 - Suicidalhamster 21:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removing the direct links caused the navigation arrows to be restored to the pages. Jeepday (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've raised bugzilla:14819 to track this problem. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I just discovered TeX rendering of formulas and I found a trouble... characters are really too big! They waste the graphics into a normal page, particolarly when inline.

I slowly understood that TeX conversion means simply that a special png image is built by the extension, then the image is posted into the page.

Imagine that <math> tag would accept a single parameter... something like <math width="75%">, giving the opportunity to scale simply the resulting png default image... wouldn't it be a good solution to that issue? Or - as probably is true - there's a nicer trick to obtain such a result, that I merely didn't find by now into the wiki-labirinth?

PS: I tried to download the png image, and to re-load it as a usual image... obviously such a trick runs ;-), the server would be very happy, and the image can be resized as you like, but it's far from comfortable and source is lost.

--Alex brollo 20:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are prefs to control the output, and bugzilla:12223 suggests a way to have improved configurability for "inline" expressions.
Your idea of allowing the dimensions to be specified is another good solution to the problem; worthy of another bug being raised.
It will probably take a while for the software to improve, but it is better to wait rather than create a whole lot of images that will eventually need to be deleted. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not going at all into the job to convert TeX output into normally manageable images... nevertheless I like the trick, and if you take a look to the image page, it's so strange: the description of the image is the source of the same image ... --Alex brollo 10:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Text quality notation[edit]

Hello, I think it is important to note the quality of texts (see Wikisource:Text quality). It is a pity that is rarely done. I use a 75% note when the text is imported from PG as mentioned in this link, but it seems that other users do differently. Or has the convention changed over time? Yann 10:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I try to use the the 75% button when importing from PG, Jeepday (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though I do wonder if you should go back to 50% if you move from PG to DjVu as some of the formatting is disturbed and needs to be corrected. Jeepday (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll usually treat PG material as 50%. PG often does not provide a reference to the original edition that can be used for proper proofreading. Boosting that to 75% tells me that someone has proofread the text by comparing it with a printed edition or a scan of that printed edition. The 75% description also makes a reference to "properly formatted" without any indication to how that term is defined. Eclecticology 18:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with E. It's reasonably reliable, but the formatting is always an issue. Most works are transcribed from books but they fail to follow the same page format. I've also seen minor scanning errors from PG. So 50% should be the default setting from that site, IMO, unless the version that they have includes proper formatting and has been reviewed by an editor here. - Mtmelendez 12:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, but then, there are two problems: 1. We need to have a notation saying "the text is complete and the formatting is OK, but proofreading is needed", especially because that is the state of most works in WS. 2. We need to fix the help pages according to the practise. Yann 14:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think {{Clean up djvu}} does what you mean, if there is a set of pagescans. And if there is no pagescans, perhaps we need a template like "Please find a digital edition so proofreading can begin". Proofreading without pagescans is silly, because one person will do a few chapters and another person will do a few chapters, but they are like to be different editions. see User talk: for the most recent example. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, Using DJVU files and the Page: namespace is a good thing, but it is a different issue. What I ask here is 1. What status do we give to PG texts? Is it reliable enough to be considered as proofread? If a WS contributor proofread a PG text, do we consider that the text is proofread by two persons? I don't have a definitive opinion about this, but PG claims that their texts are proofread, and it seems that is what we did here in the past. 2. We need a notation for works which come from another source (not as reliable as PG), but are nevertheless complete and formated. Yann 15:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it's important to note that, at least in my experience in uploading works, Project Gutenberg has similar text quality issues as we have here. There are works which are completely formatted, with all text tied to the corresponding pages of the original printed and published edition, and there are those which simply look as if they have been OCR'ed and I've had to correct minor errors. Therefore, we can't just pass all works from PG as "double-checked for formatting and scanning errors" without doing part of it ourselves.
If I see a complete formatted work on PG, I'd mark as 75%. If not, I'd be just as happy marking as 50%, waiting for a reference edition to be uploaded to begin proofreading. The importance, I think, in drawing the line between 50% and 75% is whether one Wikisource editor is willing to take responsibility in representing to readers and the community that the work uploaded here is reasonably formatted and proofread (whereas the 100% mark is for when the entire Wikisource community represents to readers that the text is very reliable.) It has to be a judgment call by the uploader to determine the differences between 50% and 75%, and the help pages should reflect this. - Mtmelendez 22:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It sounds like the recommendation is to change the ranking at Wikisource:Text quality so that copy and past from GP is at 50%, leaving "the text has been proofread and corrected by one user, who has checked it with a reference edition." (DjVu checked once) as the single criteria for 75%. This would seem to suggest that moving "the text has been scanned by a Wikisource contributor, but not yet proofread." and "the text has been imported from the Web, and the source is not known to be reliable." back to 25%. Do others agree that this is the consensus that is emerging? Jeepday (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe so. In my view, it should look like this (additions, deletions):

  • (Image:25%.svg): There is no guarantee that any part of the text is reliable, at all proofread, or properly formatted. The text may not yet be complete. Use this if:
    • the text has been scanned by a Wikisource contributor, but not yet proofread or checked for completeness.
    • the text has been imported from the Web, and the source is not known to be reliable.
  • (Image:50%.svg): The text is apparently complete and mostly formatted, but may still contain errors in content and formatting. Use this if:
    • the text has been scanned by a Wikisource contributor, but not yet proofread.
    • the text has been imported from the Web, and the source is not known to be reliable.
    • the text has been imported from a reliable source (e.g. Project Gutenberg, Gallica), but not checked for formatting and scanning errors.
  • (Image:75%.svg): The text is reasonably reliable and properly formatted, and supplied with information about the source edition. Use this if:
    • the text has been proofread and corrected by one user, who has checked it with a reference edition.
    • the text has been imported from a reliable source (e.g. Project Gutenberg, Gallica) and double-checked for formatting and scanning errors.

Two revisions I made include deleting the mentioning of Project Gutenberg and Gallica since they may represent to editors that only these or similar sites are reliable which simply isn't true. We could add "imported from a reliable source as determined by the community", as is the current case. I also think we should emphasize the edition of the publication which is used as a source, which many works, including mine, fail to do so. This allows for precise research in looking for potential physical or digital copies (djvu files) used to proofread a work here.

These are just suggestions. Please provide comment. - Mtmelendez 22:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have yet to define what is meant by "properly formatted"; perhaps that should be a separate scale from the one about textual completeness.
IIRC one difference between PG and Gallica is that the latter uses scans on its pages. (Someone will surely let me know if I have my facts wrong.) That alone can be a big distinguishing factor between between the 50% and 75% levels.
I have no problem with completeness and reliable sourcing as the key criteria that move a text from 25% to 50%. That reliable source can be an OCR text from a site with a reputation for at least making an effort to get things right. A superficially complete text from a site with a reputation for editing material to serve its own purpose would not be reliable.
In addition to proofreading by one person, the presence of an identified reference copy is key to 75% completion. I don't think that it should matter whether the reference copy is online, or on paper. The key is that it exists so that a person wanting to bring the text to the 100% level will know where to go to perform proofreading, or if he has any questions about the text.
Another point to take into account is showing the completeness level for each chapter in the Table of Contents. It will often be easier to upgrade a single chapter than a whole book. Someone who sees that only a few chapters remain to be done may be more willing to take on one chapter than to start work on a whole book. Eclecticology 00:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've pointed out to a few important facts we must consider when noting the text's quality. In formatting, I believe a work is at 50% if the work is organized following the original reference edition, either by chapters, titles, Acts, etc. For 75%, we may require that the work here be under the same format as the work was published, using page numbers, section breaks, etc. in addition to chapters, Acts, etc. But this is hard to come by, when you consider that the majority of texts in the project just follow the organization of the work, and not it's exact format. So, we could establish a separate scale for formatting, so as not to detract from the text's quality in terms of completeness and reliability.
As for sourcing, there's no way a work can be 75% without including the source edition of the work, it wont meet the "checked with a reference edition" criteria. But we need input from more users on this, because it seems this discussion is leaning towards increasing our standards of quality for texts, something I'm all for, but others might see as too much given the project's current condition. - Mtmelendez 14:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your comments about formatting suggest that there is much room for different opinions about how much formatting needs to be retained, and what formatting variations are acceptable that retain ease of editing without harming the intent of the author. Thus, one may ask such questions as, "Is it acceptable to convert marginal notes into headings?" or "Do we need to retain the line-numbering that appears with a poetical work?" or "Do we need to retain the long 's'?" This is not to say that there are no additional scales that can be used, such as the amount of Wikification that would give added value to our version of the work.
Increasing standards is tautologically good. Nevertheless it still needs to be balanced with ease of editing. We want people to add material without being intimidated by a lot of complex markup or templates. I may be reading your comments wrongly, but to ma a "source" or "reference" edition does not necessarily mean one that has been scanned into the internet. Eclecticology 17:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Noli Me Tangere date of publication of translation[edit]

Hi! Just passed by to answer the editor's question.

The publication of the translation of Noli Me Tangere into English was on 1905.

Thank you. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How do I make an interwiki link to the old wikisource? --Cradel 22:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure I understand how that answers my question, I was asking how to make an interwiki link in the left menu bar (under "in other languages") --Cradel 23:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it has to be done by the developers or administrators, meta:Help:Interwiki linking says that whether or not it appears as an IWL depends on how each prefix is configured. 00:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can't. If the prefix matches on of the language codes in the software (svn:trunk/phase3/languages/Names.php), then if shows up in the language box. -Steve Sanbeg 02:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Would it be better to merge (transwiki) the oldwikisource content to the proper language wikisource then link to that? Jeepday (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What documents are you refering to? Yann 12:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Jeepday is assuming this question is directed at Cradel, who started the interwiki link question. For clarification on the specific challenge that needs to be addressed. Jeepday (talk)

DjVu pages to images[edit]

You may have noticed a comment on djvu pages "This page consists of an image that needs to be cropped or cleaned up, and uploaded to commons." (examplePage:Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.djvu/9) there has been a minor discussion over at Commons:Commons:Village pump#Possible to upload djvu page as ordinary image? the building concensus with very little input is - "save it to the users computer, edit and crop as required, then upload it back to commons with a link to the source and DjVu page", If others have a better thought or any comment please stop by over there. Jeepday (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, he's talking about my mushrooms djvu. Pulling images out of djvu is non-trivial; I have offered to upload jpegs of any pages he so desires. Hesperian 01:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Might I suggest we remove the red lettered "This page consists of an image that needs to be cropped or cleaned up, and uploaded to commons." message from DjVu pages with images as there is no simple and effective way to actually do it? Putting the pages in a category that might be dealt with when there is a simple tool to make it work might be a better choice. Jeepday (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Are translations by users allowed ? This work for example was translated to english by a user of the english wikisource --Cradel 15:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, so long as the user licenses the work under a GFDL-compatible license or releases it into the public domain.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would go so far as to strongly encourage more such translations. GFDL licensing is already implicit when we contribute anything new. (See the instructions at the bottom of any edit page.) I would also suggest beginning with a machine translation. I will be the first to admit that machine translations are bloody awful. They nevertheless have one important advantage as a starting point: As the result of a mechanical process they lack the originality needed to make them copyrightable. Technical processes are also not influenced by familiarity with other translations, and can thus avoid inadvertent copyvios. This puts our first translation of the work on the same copyright footing as the work in the original language. If the original work is in the public domain, so too will be our first translation. Any improvements on that awful first version will be GFDL. Translations can have progress ratings too. Eclecticology 17:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Translations by Wikisource users must be identified as Wikisource translations per Wikisource:Translations. However, I would like to know how to copy user-translated lyrics from Wikipedia. English Wikipedia does not strictly require translated lyrics to show who translated them, so unless sourced, they may be either user-translated or, in worse scenarios, plagiarized copies of others' translations. Many other Wikisource language subdomains also allow user-made translations. Italian Wikisource usually forbids these due to quality concerns.--Jusjih 01:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links to Wikipedia[edit]

I have been using a fairly liberal application of Wikisource:Style guide#Wikilinks, see Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc/Translator's Preface for example with several links, or Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc/Book I/Chapter 3 for example with only a few links. Are there any thoughts on if I am being to excessive with the crosswiki links? Note that this work is w:Historical fiction with lots of good Wikipedia articles that have ancient (middle age) references. There are probably few other fictional works in Wikisource that combine the historical accuracy and sheer volume of available Wikipedia articles as Joan of Arc. So I would consider this work to probably contain the highest ratio of wiki links that anyone would expect in a Wikisource book. Jeepday (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The more the better! That's what value-added is about. Sure, not many articles have all the links that they deserve, but I don't think that it's because of any rule against them. It's just damn hard work. Eclecticology 03:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with "the more the better". Unfortunately, German Wikisource does not agree: de:Wikisource:Kommentieren says "Vom Setzen von Links zu anderen Seiten in Wikisource oder Interwikilinks zur Wikipedia im Quellentext selbst ist in der Regel Abstand zu nehmen" (Setting links to other pages in Wikisource or interwiki links to Wikipedia in the source text itself should normally be avoided). This seems to be part of a general trend in German-language Wikimedia projects to make the projects as unhelpful for users as possible. Angr 11:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I wholeheartedly disagree with them. In this work, for example, links to other pages in Wikisource gives invaluable background to the subject at hand, something they would not know unless they were experts on the subject. - Mtmelendez 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally I disagree with linking to Wikipedia except in annotations, though not particularly strongly. However, cross-linking between other Wikisource documents is the primary value-add of Wikisource, and the main point of difference between us and Project Gutenberg! Those Germans must have rocks in their heads to be discouraging it.

Here's a good example of how well it can work: James Edward Smith's Characters of a new Liliaceous Genus called Brodiaea opens with

"I have had occasion, in treating of the distinctions between a calyx and corolla, Introduction to Botany, 263, to advert to a new genus of the liliaceous family, furnished with internal petals."

Clicking on that page number takes you to the exact page of An introduction to physiological and systematical botany that Smith is referring to. This isn't a gimmick; this has the potential to make real-world botanical research easier.

Another good example: on Page 259 of An introduction to physiological and systematical botany, Smith writes

"Proud man is disposed to think that 'Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,' because he has not deigned to explore it; but we find that even the beauties of the most sequestered wilderness are not made in vain."

The 'Full many a flower' bit is an Alexander Pope quote, but most people won't pick up the allusion without a bit of help. The link takes the user directly to line of Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard being quoted.

As for the Joan of Arc example linked to above, I think linking Song of Roland to the Wikipedia article is a lost opportunity. Because Song of Roland is itself a source, it should be linked to The Song of Roland, even if that were a redlink, because redlinks invite contributors!

Hesperian 12:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pope didn't write Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.--Poetlister 17:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Song of Roland is subject to deletion pending review at WS:COPYVIO#The_Song_of_Roland, but I will put a note at copyvio to change the link at Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc/Book I/Chapter 3 if it turns out, (which it likely will) that the copyright renewal here only applies to intro by Hamish Miles, images and other new work not to the actual translation by Moncrieff, which is available at Project Gutenberg in theory as a PD work. I did not include the WS link pending the copyright clarification, but I should have made a note about it. Making notes now. Jeepday (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support not linking to wikipedia in a source text in that meaning, that the link should not be made in the text itself: first, it has not been there in the origin text (the point of the authenticity), second, it brings the reader away from the document and could disturb while reading. But on the other hand, and we practice this in the Czech Wikisource, we use in that case numbered (Wikisource) remarks in the text itself, and naturally we have interwikis in the left column, and on the author pges we are preparing now links to biography articles in the "home language wikipedia" of the author (now we have links to biographies in the only). But we do not want to have links to general articles like history, WW2, New York, book etc. Every page on the cs.source contains a link to a main article in the, so that everybody who needs more information can go there and find all that words (in my opinion there are too much links there anyway). -jkb- 14:33, 18. 7. 2008 (UTC) - - - this was -jkb- (cs.source) - my signature will not function somehow
I often add works of a fairly technical nature to Wikisource, in particular books and articles on linguistics, and these works are full of technical terms. I find it useful to link these technical terms to their corresponding encyclopedia articles directly, so the reader can discover what the terms mean. The fact that the links aren't there in the original source document is irrelevant as long as the wording itself hasn't changed. I think it is much harder and more distracting to read a text[1] that is full[2] of footnotes[3] than to read a text that is full of words written in blue. It would also be annoying for the reader to click on the footnote index, get to the footnotes, and see there's nothing there but a link to Wikipedia than to be able to just click on the Wikipedia link directly from the source text. (PS: You need to fix your preferences so your signature points to User:-jkb- rather than Uživatel:-jkb-, since "Uživatel:" is not a valid namespace here at English Wikisource.) Angr 16:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ Angr: sure I have User in the link to my page here, I had Uživatel in my link to cs.source. See my former contributions, it worked. This afternoon there is a sort of a bug. Now it functions. -jkb- (cs.source) 17:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also believe these links to be very useful for readers, since many are looking for works as part of a larger research project. Adding links to Wikipedia or to Wiktionary for rare or overtly technical terms and subjects gives depth to the work they are reading. - Mtmelendez 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But back to the point: I can understand that in case of specialized texts (technical ones, medical ones etc.) there are many words that are not common. The question is although: is Wikisource a general encyclopaedia or something else. I guess if somebody is reading here a specialized text on a medical problem so he or she will first have read some general articles about the matter in the wikipedia or somewhere else. Here we have the origin texts, and when we talk about technical etc. texts so we can assume hte people that read it understand a bit what the thext is writing about. Once again: not in Wikipedia, where I am really and often unlucky when I see there a lot of specialized texts without any help to specialized words or problems. But this is Wikisource, and when I have here a text about the history of the Roman Empire so I can not explain here the whole history of this Empire. Wikipedia does it, not Wikisource. -jkb- (cs.source) 17:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikisource is an improved version of the common library. We hold published works here, but our tools allows us to provide much more information for the reader than any single librarian could. Links is one of those tools, and should be used to provide relevant context. So for example, if the author Aeschylus refers to a specific real event in Ancient Greek times in one of his works, it might be worth linking to Wikipedia because readers may want to know what that event was to understand the author's work. I personally tend to link real persons to their biographies in Wikipedia, or their author page here, to provide background to the reader. We don't have to provide summaries or notes in here from Wikipedias, just a simple piped link in relevant titles, names, terms or phrases, used sparingly. That's hardly intrusive towards the work. We have also included footnotes and commentaries in works, but so do many other sites and publishers. - Mtmelendez 18:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally I agree with the people who believe this sort of linking is what sets us apart from mere duplication of the efforts of similar projects. I also agree with Angr that the hypertext is much less distracting than footnotes. When this was discussed in the past, consensus was that the blue text can still be somewhat distracting and preferaly it could be optional to "hide" the hypertext links. I still have the result of that in my monobook, which adds a tab marked "hide/show" which can turn the blue text black (the link still works however). If people are interested, this could probaly be added to the gadgets available in preferences by someone technical.--BirgitteSB 21:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I'll have a look at it. This could be something I could favorize as a solution. -jkb- (cs.source) 21:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Author template problems[edit]

If an author's birth/death date(s) are unknown, the author template puts the author in the "ancient authors" category. This should be fixed; Author:Dave White is an example of why this is a bad idea. I tried to fix it, but I'm not very good with template code. Psychless 03:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Author:Dave White doesn't exist. Could you give another example please? This is the first I've heard of this problem.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nevermind, I found an example: Author:A. E. Henderson. This is an interesting bug; without having to change the code simply removing the questions marks will make the problem go away.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting. And by the way, the link should have been Author:David White. Psychless 00:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removing the ? solves the problem. Yann 07:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Watchlist question[edit]

On one's watchlist, boldface means the page has been changed since the last time one visited. What does the red exclamation point mean? Angr/Talk 18:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The revision has yet to be Patrolled, and the person seeing the red exclamation marks has permission to patrol the revision. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Main Page[edit]

Hello, fellow librarians. I made two comments which I'd like to see feedback from. The first is two minor suggestions for the COTW template box on the Main Page, and the other is a visual problem I have with two template boxes which aren't floating next to each other. Please take a look. Thanks, - Mtmelendez 14:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright tagging subpages[edit]

Hi all. I recently asked Kathleen.wright5 not to put a copyright tag on every subpage of a work, as tagging the main page of a work suffices, and tagging subpages unnecessarily clutters up the works-by-copyright-status categories. She has obliged. However, Yann has since questioned this, and suggested that it is SOP to tag subpages. Can anyone shed any light on what is common sense/SOP/policy on this point?

We need to put the tag on for at least two reason
  1. to blank the text so that we are not violating copyright, and so that mirrors don't pick it up and continue the copyright violation
  2. to inform people why the content is blanked and where to go to comment or learn more
I would say the probable solution would be to build a secondary tag that blanks, list the appropriate and information and that puts the subpages in a different category. Jeepday (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not talking about copyvio tags. I'm talking about copyright status tags like {{PD-old}}. Hesperian 12:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dunno. I'd argue for one copyright tag on the work's main page, but it may present problems if readers are searching for chapters or sections only, since they may not be aware that work is copyrighted in their native country. - Mtmelendez 14:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe some clever person could make smaller, less conspicuous copyright tags to go on subpages. The normal ones are so big they would really start getting on your nerves if you saw them on every page, but something small and inconspicuous could provide a link to the full version of the template, making it clear whether the work is PD in the user's own country or not. Angr 21:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An excellent idea! I'm all for it, sort of like a small line saying "This page is part of a larger work which is in the Public Domain." - Mtmelendez 14:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Titles of translations on Wikisource[edit]

The issue: should the Wikisource title of a translated work follow the original published title or the modern convention of how the title should be translated? The case at hand: I uploaded a translation of Fichte's Sonnenklarer Bericht made by A.E. Kroeger, originally published as Sun-Clear Statement. Another user has changed the title to Crystal Clear Report because that is the the title translation favored by Dan Breazeale/Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (NOTE: there is only one other English translation of this work, made by John Botterman and William Rash -- found in this book -- and it was the only available translation at the time Breazeale wrote the SEP article. The title chosen by Botterman/Rash: A Crystal Clear Report to the General Public Concerning the Actual Essence of the Newest Philosophy: An Attempt to Force the Reader to Understand.) My argument: I uploaded Kroeger's translation, Kroeger chose to translate Sonnenklarer Bericht literally (Sun-Clear Statement) so the Wikisource page title should reflect his choice (and the original published title).

The broader question is how much liberty should a Wikisource contributor take with the texts s/he is working with. If titles are fair game, what about chapter headings? Content?

I am just a casual contributor to Wikisource so will a more experience Wikisource user weigh in on this? There is more on User talk:Ingram.

Ingram 01:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we translated it ourselves, then we are at liberty to argue over what the title should be. Such debates are held in the real world all the time, so we must expect them to happen here too e.g. Remembrances of things past versus In search of lost time. But when posting a published translation, we must be true to the published version, rather than "improving" on it by changing the title. Hesperian 01:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...and therefore, with respect to your specific case, a transcription of Kroeger's translation must use Kroeger's title. Hesperian 01:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From the message on your talk, I am guessing that the naming being suggested is based on the Wikipedia naming conventions, which are usually fairly applicable here, but they dont work for translations.
It is important to separate the naming of pages from the title of works. Our title of the work should be very closely aligned with the published title of the work, in this case the translators choice of title. Our chapters are typically numbered rather than named. i.e. "Work pagename/Chapter 1", so chapter headings are less of an issue. The page name is primarily the address on the web, and so should be selected based for its uniqueness, appearance, search weighting, etc. In this case "Sun-Clear Statement" is at least as good an address on the web as "Crystal Clear Report", and I would actually prefer "Sun-Clear Statement" because the other translation is named "A Crystal Clear Report ...". i.e. "Sun-Clear Statement" is a far less ambiguous page name. A disambiguation page should be created at Sonnenklarer Bericht, listing all translations even if we dont yet have them. Any other sensible name for this work should be a redirect to the disambiguation page name. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preloaded templates[edit]


This script is one of the most useful feature of WS. Could this script be modified so that, if the TOC is [[/Chapter 2|Chapter 2. Title Chapter 2]], the previous and next parameters should be "next = [[../Chapter 2|Chapter 2. Title Chapter 2]]" and not "next = [[../Chapter 2|Chapter 2]]"? Also do we already have a help page about it? Thanks, Yann 15:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Trinitate needs to be fixed[edit]

I'm a grad student currently doing an Independent Readings course in Augustine's "De Trinitate." In the course of my work, I discovered that the text for Book IV posted for that work ( is actually the Latin text for Book IV of "De Civitate Dei." I was thinking that perhaps the links for Book IV of "De Trinitate" and Book IV of "De Civitate Dei" got crossed somehow. Upon finding the Latin text for "De Civitate Dei" however, I saw that only Books I through III are online as of yet. What happened to Book IV of "De Trinitate"? Does anybody know?

Anyone can contact me at My name is Adam.

You may get a speedier response if you ask at the Latin Scriptorium. Psychless 15:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Done and done. --Adam

Desirability of linking Google/archive scholarly/standard editions from author pages[edit]

German Wikisource (e.g. Sophokles) has used its author pages to link to scholarly editions and other resources at Google Books,, etc. English Wikipedia articles sometimes have the same information in the external links (e.g. Alexander of Aphrodisias, Hippocratic Corpus). Obviously, in many cases the scholarly editions, seen in scanned page images, convey much information that would be difficult to bring to a Wikisource text (critical apparatuses, etc.). Google Books,, etc., are themselves so poorly indexed, that it would certainly be a service to have listings by author pooled somewhere.

But I am new to Wikisource and my question is whether it is worthwhile to try to introduce listings of such external free-book resources here, or whether it clashes with the accepted view here of the project's purpose and limits. If this directory information doesn't belong anywhere here, where does it belong? (Surely not only in the various individuals' catalogs that have sprouted up around the internet, which can disappear at any time.) Wareh 17:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you familiar with Side by side image view for proofreading? Jeepday (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since January I'm building a list of downloadable books in Portuguese language found in Google Book Search. In the past week it becomes public as a draft at (not open for editing yet) (externally hosted since it requires Semantic MediaWiki and it is helpfull for Wikisource and Distributed Proofreaders). If anyone is interested to build a fork on your own language, I can share my views and my experience related to it. Lugusto 21:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lugusto gives an example of what I meant by scattered catalogs by individuals; I have contributed to this genre too. Thanks for the pointer to Side by side image view for proofreading. I saw the Tolstoy journal example, which was part of a Microsoft-scanned book; has anyone definitely implemented this for a Google-scanned book? Obviously it's a lot more work to implement this than to just provide a link to Google or; I guess what I was wondering is whether there's a standard format for linking scanned-book resources pending such integration. (Nothing would please me more than to see these public domain images hosted on a site like Wikisource that is purely in the public interest, but for now, since the huge bulk of such material remains elsewhere, pointing at it would be a start.)
A related question is the English-language exclusion here. My original Greek examples showed that at German Wikisource it's considered normal to link standard editions of original-language (non-German) texts if available. But here, at Author:Virgil there is no link to the original-language texts of this author, even though excellent quality ones are in the public domain. I find something highly artificial about segregating such wikisourced texts at Latin Wikisource, where the whole user interface is in Latin, talk pages ("disputationes") are presumably supposed to be in Latin, etc., even though the majority of people interested in reading Virgil in Latin are (1) not competent to discuss wikisource issues in Latin, but (2) competent to do so in English. I'm mixing a lot of issues here; what it boils down to is, "Why doesn't this English site offer its users the kind of helpful information and links as the German Wikisource page on Sophocles I linked?" (with no disrespect intended or suggestion that there aren't good reasons). I ask because, like Lugusto, within some areas, I have a pretty good sense of what unexploited and unappreciated sources are out there, but it seems there's no standardized clearing-house to which I can contribute this information. Wareh 01:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, Latin Wikisource, like Latin Wikipedia, allows discussion in English, French, German and Italian as well as Latin. De facto, English is used predominantly. Angr 05:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no reason why you couldn't make a heading at the bottom of any page and indicate the sources you refer to, just like the German page. There isn't any particular convention here that says you cannot do this and I agree it would be useful. As long as the works are valuable to research on the author, I do not believe anyone will have a problem with a heading at the bottom of the page for "Additional research" or "Commentaries" or perhaps a nested set of works separated by type, something like ==Works in original Latin==, ==Other authors== : ===Analysis===, ===Criticism===, and so on. There isn't anything that says this cannot be done and it seems as useful as the texts. As these things were added to other wikisource languages, the links of some could migrate to their new locations. The best answer to why it isn't done right now is lack of time, interest, and/or knowledge on the part of other contributors. Therefore, if you have these things, help everyone ;) --Mkoyle 18:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the information and encouragement. Wareh 03:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page break inside an indented paragraph[edit]

When using side-by-side proofreading so that each page of the original is reflected by one page in the Page: namespace, is there any way to get a page break that falls inside an indented paragraph (i.e. one that starts with a ":" in the MediaWiki markup). Take a look at Scottish Gaelic Dialects and the break between page 328 and 329 to see what I'm talking about. Angr 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeap, you should transclude the pages 328 and 329 without any line break (and don't repeat the indented tag in the page 329). --LaosLos 20:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your help! Angr 20:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alternatively, put the “:” on the second page inside a pair of <noinclude>…</noinclude> tags. That way, the indentation displays correctly both in the Page: namespace and when the page text is transcluded. (See, for example, the carryover paragraph from pages 11 to 12 of Copyright Law Revision (House Report No. 94-1476). Tarmstro99 19:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discovering something of Tex engine by myself...[edit]

Could be, all from you know what I discovered about png rendering of TeX codes, nevertheless I'm proud to tell you that I found by myself this:

"The static name of png image of a formula is the MD5 hash of the TeX code as appears into alt parameter of the png image".

You can see my step-by-step work into my user page.

So, the same formula written anywhere into wiki projects point to the same image I presume... and i presume that if an identical image exists, there's no need to parse it again and to re-build the same image. Is there someone deep into mysteries of wiki TeX engine? I'm a very curious fellow ;-) --Alex brollo 07:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Are all speeches in the Public Domain? Can we include any speech in Wikisource? 18:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a tricky question that neither Wikisource nor the legal community can fully answer. There are administrators on both sides of the issue, and a variety that inhabit a grey area in between. It would be best if you could specify the general nature of the speeches you want to add - for example, we can guarantee that all official speeches made by an American president, senator or congressman are in the Public Domain - but with Canadian Prime Ministers...we can only guarantee that speeches made by Prime Ministers from Louis St. Laurent and further back are in the Public Domain. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 19:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some speeches are copyrighted, even though it's not apparent. For an example, see Author talk:Martin Luther King, Jr., whose speeches are widely cited and published but, according to research, are still copyrighted. There are several things to consider, for example: When and where was the speech given? Does it have a copyright notice? Was it prepared and written beforehand? Was it made by a private person or a public employee? These questions may answer whether or not they are copyrighted. When in doubt, leave a message here to obtain feedback from the community and administrators on a particular speech before posting. - Mtmelendez 14:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stephen Colbert's address to the White House Press Correspondents Dinner was recently deleted as a copyvio, so no, not all speeches are public domain and includable at WS. Angr 07:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ummm...Tricky. Anyways, Thank you. 13:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with an image, please[edit]

This is in reference to Arts and Crafts Essays/Printing. Please look at the scan of the book, page 127. Notice that there is a small diagram inserted in the text halfway down. I have the image at the commons; I believe if it was reduced to 50px wide it would be the right size to fit into the text in the same way as in the printed source. However, as far as I can tell, the usual wiki image commands aren't equipped to insert something in the middle of the line like that. Does anyone here have an idea how it could be done?

Thanks. --Levana Taylor 05:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You mean like this, perchance? This image was rendered inline with [[Image:ArtsAndCraftsLines.GIF|50px]]. I can't access the book page you're referring to. Google only offers me a lot of "Buy this book" links.--GrafZahl (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I downloaded the book from and inline rendering appears indeed to be the correct way of representation. Note that it might be a good idea to upload the book to the Commons for side-by-side proofing, see Help:Side by side image view for proofreading.--GrafZahl (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, it works! Okay, now I feel like the newbiest of newbies. Thanks, GrafZahl. --Levana Taylor 08:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is it possible if an Admin could erase my entire userpage and subpages, I've had enough with the Wikimedia sites - I've had all of my other userpage and subpages erased on the other wiki-sites, I've explained on my talkpage to one of the user's why I requested my other userpages to be deleted - I'll erase the e-mail address from my preferences. Terra Welcome to my talkpage 12:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have deleted your userpage and subpages as requested, as a courtesy under m:vanish for a good faith contributor in this project. I have not deleted your user talk page for the moment, since it contains the reason for requesting the deletion. I'd personally recommend leaving the talk page open, however, if you really want to delete it, just ask and I will oblige. Thanks, - Mtmelendez 13:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that the so-called right to vanish should be automatic. In this case the user page contained nothing of consequence, and no harm was done by deleting it. Blanking should still be preferred to deleting unless leaving the material in the public archives would be harmful to the individual. For this user his complaints appeared to be rooted on generic threats to all users, and not threats that were made against him in particular. Also, a person's difficulties with an other project should not be determinative of how we deal with him in Wikisource. We have consistently judged a person on his behaviour here; similarly, one's right to vanish should be based on what happens here rather than on any other project. Whether we choose to blank or delete, it would be preferable to put a note on that user page to the effect that it has been blanked or deleted at the user's request.
Subpages are often sought to be deleted by users who do not otherwise vanish. This may simply be because they were set up to aid that user in using the site, and have outlived their usefulness. There should be no problem with deleting these, though I do note that some of them for this user still remain. (probably overlooked?)
Talk pages should remain unless there is a good reason to delete them. This person appears to have had a common misunderstanding about proofreading, and to the extent that it has affected article space it is an important part of the record. Eclecticology 17:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to agree, some. I don't think vanish should be automatic or entirely thorough. I think we should delete everything in the "User:" namespace upon request, as that is the "most owned" by the user and generally has the least bearing on the project as a whole. I do not think the anything in the "User talk:" namespace should ever be deleted, as that is a record of the communications/collaborations of many users of this project, and its contents are important to the project as a whole (how many discussions have we had on the Scriptorium that initially started between two users on a talk page?).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am a firm believer in the right to vanish, in an online world where privacy is an increasingly rare commodity as every major outlet seeks to gobble up and store what information it can -- WMF is well-served in pushing for the right to a "free internet" even when it inhibits us personally. Perhaps a compromise could be made, where Wikisource:Archived discussions is created, and whenever a user talkpage is deleted - the deleting administrator copies over any discussions other than the "Welcome", "Please note that X needs a tag", "I fixed you typo" and such to the archives; but replacing the username with Foo and stripping the date/time tags. That way there is no risk of future employers, ex-lovers or whathaveyou ever finding those comments while stalking said internet user, and even if the discussions are analysed, there would be no easy way to backtrace them to see which user originally spoke those words. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 18:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The privilege of vanishing is a courtesy. If you don't want anything you say to come back at you don't say it. That's what accepting personal responsibility is all about. Stalkers remain a very tiny fraction of the population; as such we should not let their antics dominate our policies. Eclecticology 11:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm quite sure it is entitled Right to Vanish, not Privilege Sometimes Extended as a Courtesty to Vanish. I know the Meta essay is dodgy on the issue to avoid people "demanding" it, but I think it should be considered what it is, and when requested, we should do our utmost, not the bare minimum, to help that user vanish. We could equally install tracking cookies and say "If you don't want WMF to know what porn sites you look at, don't look at porn sites that would embarrass you", but ultimately WMF and its individual projects should be leaning towards avoiding the pitfalls of the internet, and forming Web 2.0 in our own image. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 18:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Eclecticology and Zhaladshar; if we allow user discussion to be deleted under right to vanish, as it introduces an ability to dodge accountability, and it is those who are left behind who are at put at most risk because the context of messages on their talk page has been removed. That confusion and the accountability issue, outweigh the persons right to "vanish" without a trace. Also, there is always a trace left behind and the intrigue causes people to dig and suppose and guess and eventually get lucky. We should rename accounts, and/or blank pages, and use the new NOINDEX flag, etc. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assuming the user is not a banned vandal, there is no reason "accountability" should play any function. While it may irritate you that everything signed "Sherurcij" on your userpage may one day in the future simply read "Deleted user account", that doesn't change the fact the comment is still there telling you that Chapter 23 is missing from Gone with the Wind, or that "somebody" sent you a link verifying publication information for that latest US report. Which name is attached is meaningless, especially when taken in the context that WMF and WS allow multiple user accounts anyways (so long as they are not used to evade bans or stack straw polls). We could be like the Citizendium and require people to verify their RL identities, addresses and employment/education history before they work on our project all in the name of "accountability" -- but that's not what Wikis, WMF or Web 2.0 is about. It's about the ability to help create something beautiful, without fearing the risk that one day your work will come back to haunt you. As you said, administrators and law enforcement can always follow the "paper trail" and figure out who did what...Right to Vanish, properly applied, will only prevent "outsiders" from being able to use WS to 'stalk' individuals. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 18:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it would irritate me if people cant see the discussion that occurred across your user talk and my user talk at times.
I dont mind if my talk page doesnt say "Sherurcij" - it could say "renamed user 999", but a good stalker will still be able to pick your demeanor and writing style. To be effective, you would need to remove your posts from all archives. Deleting it doesnt remove it anyway; there are dumps that contain everything that hasnt been "oversighted". Also, if we give adminship out liberally to anyone with clue, a stalker can easily social-engineer the information out of an admin, and adminship turns into more than just a mop. I John Vandenberg (chat) 01:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are we obliged to reproduce Wikipedia?[edit]

I was asked to look at the note at the top of Dover Beach on the grounds that it was peacock wording. I agreed and re-wrote the note. Jayvdb reverted me on the grounds that the note reproduced the introduction to w:Dover Beach. [3] Are we obliged to reproduce the introduction to WP articles blindly, even if we don't agree with them? (That would never be allowed on WP itself, where you cannot quote one article as a reliable source in> another one.) Surely several of Arnold's other poems are equally famous, and "generally considered one of the most important poems of the 19th century" is a bit strong. I can of course amend the article on WP and then a week later amend WS to agree, but I might be reverted the following day.

In general, must we keep monitoring Wikipedia to amend our articles every time they change theirs? How do we know if their version is stable? What if they reproduce the entire text of a poem, as in w:Wee Willie Winkie? If I add that poem here, I would use Miller's original text, which differs slightly from what is there. Would someone amend the text to agree with WP?--Poetlister 21:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No we are not particularly obliged to Wikipedia, some notes come from other sources or are unquie to Wikisource. However I would suggest that any changes that need to be made to the text extracted from Wikipedia are made in the Wikipedia article as well as here. We are in that case claiming the text is extracted from there and even if someone sees the need to change I would rather preserve the link than not. BTW having the full text of poems is not kosher at WP and they will eventually be removed.--BirgitteSB 03:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are not quoting Wikipedia as a reliable source. We are excerpting from Wikipedia, as it is one "free content" encyclopedic source and it can be edited which means our contributors can fix any errors there if need be. It isnt always easy to change Wikipedia, but it is possible, and it should be attempted. It is precisely because it is more difficult to make changes there that this is a necessary evil: there are more eyes and discussion on Wikipedia. While I have no doubt that Poetlisters change to our local page was a good one, if we let Wikisource regulars write "better" descriptions here on Wikisource, we will also have to allow everyone else to write "better" descriptions here, and then we will have Wikipedians using Wikisource as a weapon in their Wikipedia debates. It is far better that we are subseviant to Wikipedia, as opposed to importing and compounding their problems.

Our stringent no fair use policy prohibits us from excerpting descriptions the majority of contemporary academic sources, but we could work with Wikiquote to handle this. If Wikiquote can have pages about prominent works, with quotes about the work, we could prominently link to wikiquote as the place to go for quick descriptions. We could then enhance that linkage between the two sites by creating a JavaScript gadget that allows a reader to popup a small window containing the wikiquotes by clicking a button or hovering over a link.

I would love to see us develop a practise of not relying on Wikipedia as the only means of describing a work. I have started collecting PD NYT book reviews, such as The New York Times/Notable Books in Short Review/Throttled! and Index:NYT book review of Cross-Examination.djvu. There are probably many Creative Commons blogs which we could excerpt from as well (which could encourage people to write about works on Wikisource), but that starts us down the gentle slope of allowing people to insert POV into the title of works rather than giving our readers the raw text and letting them make up their own mind.

If we can obtain a feed of MARC records, we could use the descriptive fields provided in those, assuming they are not a copyright issue. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure if John is proposing that we should have a page of quotations by say Kenneth Allott on Wikiquote so we can include quotes by him about Matthew Arnold for Wikisource purposes. I don't think that's the function of Wikiquote.--Poetlister 16:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I very much agree with Poetlister on this, and I think that John's approach is somewhat extreme. I see no need whatsoever to be subservient to Wikipedia. What difficulties there are in changing Wikipedia are of no concern to us. I also fail to see the relevance of Wikiquote in this. If Wikisourcerors (regular or not) want to write their own notes I see no problem in that. If Wikipedians use our notes in their arguments it's their problem, not ours. Granted, our notes should remain succinct, and avoid venturing into literary criticism, even when that criticism is imported from Wikipedia. Eclecticology 00:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must say I agree with Eclecticology here. We don't need to copy WP, we should just write succint and neutral notes. (Copying WP is OK but not a requirement.) —Giggy 10:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have always considered copying Wikipedia into the note as an easy and quick way of getting a generally useful and accurate introduction to a work or author. However I don't think we are obliged to copy it. Firstly on Author pages wikipedia is already prominantly linked under Biography so can already be easily accessed (may be a similar template is needed for works). Secondly a good introduction for a wikipedia article does not necessarily make a good note for wikisource. For example Wikisource may want to emphasise publication history while Wikipedia may focus on literary critism, and in my opinion it is better to tailor the note to the focus of this project. However that is obviously more work, so copying Wikipedia is a good stop-gap! Suicidalhamster 11:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not consider us obliged to reproduce Wikipedia when making short introductions in articles or author pages. When copying from Wikipedia, a note about excerpting looks fine.--Jusjih 02:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status[edit]

Hi all. I'm not too good with wikis, so I thought I'd post a question here instead of risking messing things up. Could someone verify the copyright status of Pensées by Blaise Pascal. It says the work is PD, but since the translator died 1958, it might not be PD for Death + 50 and death+70 countries.

When was it published? Yann 07:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edward Payson Dutton died in 1923. Is he the translator in this discussion?--Jusjih 02:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiktionary links displaying definition[edit]

I have been thinking about the appearance of the wiktionary links. It is nice to have the definition linked to, but it seems like it would be nicer to have the definition appear when you put your cursor above the word-- without actually having to look at the wiktionary page. My first thought was to make it possible to link to a particular definition and display it, but I then realized that the order of definitions there could change. Perhaps instead some sort of template... perhaps {{wiktionary|_word_|_definition_}} and have the 'definition' appear when putting the cursor over the word. Would this fit in here at wikisource? Does anyone know how to do that? --Mkoyle 21:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, it's impossible to do it without resorting to 3rd party browser extensions such as WikiLook (which is such a nice tool you should have it installed anyway ^_^). One must use dirty template tricks even to link to a specific definition/meaning of a lexeme from another Wiktionary lexeme (hence nobody does it and meaning glosses are used instead). --Ivan Štambuk 23:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The results of such a proposal would be misleading because choosing the "correct" definition is often a POV matter. Good writers can easily intend several meanings to apply at the same time; thus, it is better to view the entire Wiktionary entry. Eclecticology 23:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we have (either here or on Meta or somewhere else) a centralized list of all the codes that can be used after <div style= and <span style= for text formatting? Angr 18:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know, but I'd also love to see one. - Mtmelendez 19:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are "CSS style properties" or "CSS style rules". Some won't work because they're blocked by MediaWiki (usually for security reasons) or because they conflict with the Wikisource primary style sheets. My favorite, concise reference for them is from Also, support for them isn't consistent in all browsers, so when you use them in a page it's best to check how it looks in several different browsers. (Versions of Internet Explorer usually being the most problematic, in my experience.)--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 19:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Author indexes[edit]

As I was adding new authors, I noticed that there's a lot of inconsistency in how the names and dates are formatted. I'm willing to go through the whole thing and make it consistent, but to do that I need to know which of the following alternatives are, or ought to be, the standard:

  • Author's name: "Shakespeare, William" vs. "William Shakespeare"
  • Dates of living authors: (b. 1950) vs. (1950 – present)
  • Unknown dates: ( – ) vs. omitted, with a scattering of other choices

Opinions? --Levana Taylor 03:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Names should always be given as "William Shakespeare" in the indexes, and dates are given in the header. I believe there's an "unknown" tag for dates which are uncertain, but I personally just leave them blank. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 21:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assisting with splitting of long texts[edit]

I wanted to help with splitting of some of the texts which are uploaded but could not find an article which could be a step-by-step guide for the same. From what I have gathered from different help pages is listed below. Please confirm if this is correct before I begin.

1. Pick a text needing splitting from [4]. Let's say I clicked on Text1. 2. Once I am redirected to the page for Text1, I click on edit.

Assume that Text1 contains 10 chapters all written on the same page which needs to be split into 11 differen

3. On the edit page, I put table on contents as follows (just putting 2 as example) Chapter1 Chapter2

4. Now if I click on Show Preview, it shows me Chapter1 and Chapter2 on the page as hyperlinks. Clicking on the hyperlink takes me to a new page.

5. On the new page I copy and paste the text under Chapter1 on the original page and click on Save Page. This will automatically create a new page called Chapter1 under Text1.

6. I can now remove the text under Chapter1 on the original page.

7. Once I have completed this for all the Chapters, I will be left with only the TOC on the original page.

Is the above correct?

Also, do I need to add any special tags to the page, as I will only be splitting the text already on WikiSource? Please include in your response any other important information that I need to know. unsigned comment by Neetika.Kapoor (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2008.

That procedure is correct. Once you have split the text into a logical structure, the {{split}} tag can be removed; no replacement tag is required.. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please look at the Gadgets in your preferences. The "Template Preloader" helps a lot with the creation of headers. Best regards, Yann 20:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One small point: Prefer using "Chapter 1" with a space instead of "Chapter1". Eclecticology 23:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD-Art on Commons[edit]

There is currently a discussion and straw poll on changing Commons' PD-Art policy. The outcome of this discussion will affect many of the portraits of English authors that we display on our author pages. If you'd like to weigh in, please join the discussion. Kaldari 14:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The policy has been amended to accept PD-Art copies from any countries even if the recent copies are still copyrighted at home.--Jusjih 03:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review of Commons Scope: how is Commons used by Wikisource?[edit]

The Commons Scope page is being re-written, and input from users of this Wiki would be useful. One particular issue that is not yet resolved is what type of pdf files should Commons host? Please drop by and say what you would like as want to ensure that Commons covers the type of pdf and other files that you need here. The discussion is at Commons:Commons talk:Project scope/Proposal, and the pdf section can be found at Commons:Commons talk:Project scope/Proposal#Pdf examples to discuss. --MichaelMaggs 06:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Commons:Project scope/Proposal now includes a proposal as to how Commons should handle these file types. Comments are welcome at Commons:Commons talk:Project scope/Proposal#Pdf and Djvu files. --MichaelMaggs 20:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template {{featured talk}} says "Since it has been locked from editing to protect its integrity, you should propose any changes on this talk page", neither the page in The Wind in the Willows nor the pages in Index:Wind in the Willows (1913).djvu, have been protected. Does the template message need to be updated or do the pages need to be protected? Jeepday (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wind in the Willows is next months text, so I've left it unprotected in part because I dont see the need for protection, and also 'cause I'm hoping for further improvements before the end of the month. The template should probably not say it is protected until it is scheduled to be on the front page. The template is not protected :-) John Vandenberg (chat) 11:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's hard to discern what excuse one would have for protecting any of thee "featured" pages. Now that pages can be patrolled, or we can have stable versions, not protecting makes it easier for anyone to add cross-project links or develop other added value that does not damage the integrity of the text. Eclecticology 06:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I Removed the sentence from the template. Jeepday (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

djvu Files that need to be transferred to text[edit]

How do I find djvu files which needs to be transferred to text? Is there a way of knowing if anybody is already working on the same?

You might find what you're looking for at Wikisource:Transcription Projects. Hesperian 02:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Where can I find the guidelines for templates to be used on Djvu pages when transcribed? How do I mark a transcribed page as proofread if I am helping with proofreading?
I began transcripting and did pages 17-21. However, the main page is still showing all links for these pages as unwritten. Why is that? When I go to the pages, I see the text written as I typed it in.
Could somebody take a look at Pages 17-21 and guide if I am moving on this correctly?
Click on the word "Pages:" to purge the page links. Hesperian 04:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do I mark a transcribed page as proofread if I am helping with proofreading?--Neetika.Kapoor 02:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's nothing wrong with marking your own first round of proofreading to the 75% level. That basically lets everyone know that we are dealing with something a little better than raw OCR text. Eclecticology 03:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do I mark the first round to 75% level? I did not understand. Can I follow the same procedure if I am proofreading somebody else's text.--Neetika.Kapoor 04:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you edit a page in the Page: namespace (as you've been doing), you'll see three or four coloured buttons on the row just above the "Save page" button. If you click on the yellow one before you save, it will come up as proofread. Hesperian 04:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do I do with the pages that are completely blank?
What do I do with the pages with images?--Neetika.Kapoor 14:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{Blank page}} can be used for blank pages, and {{Page contains image}} or {{Use page image}} can be used for pages with images. Examples of the later two in use can be found here and here. - Suicidalhamster 14:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added {{Blank page}} to Help:Side by side image view for proofreading#Formatting conventions, Jeepday (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{Page contains image}} or {{Use page image}} are used to flag that the image will need to be added at some point in the future; it doesn't actually place the image on the page. See Page:Appendix to the first twenty-three volumes of Edwards's Botanical Register.djvu/151 for an example of a page that includes the DjVu page as an image, or Page:A Specimen of the Botany of New Holland.djvu/32 for an example of a page that includes an external image. Hesperian 00:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Currently this 1924 short story is marked as "PD-no-notice", and was the subject of a previous deletion discussion. How can we say whether it had no notice unless we had some idea of its original publication circumstances? To establish that there was no notice we still need information about those circumstances, sufficient to allow anyone to track down that original and verify the lack of notice. We should reconsider the copyvio status. Eclecticology 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The author did not renew any copyrights on pre-1929 works for whatever reason - and this story does not seem to be a CopyVio. I'm of the firm view that the onus is on the person calling foul, that is why we require people to alert us to copyVios, not alert us to publicDomain texts. I've seen no burden of evidence suggesting this story is still in copyright, and as I believe I mentioned in earlier discussions, that it is in fact at least public domain in some countries - and there is no evidence of it being copyrighted in any country. PD-unrenewed is probably a better tag for it -- but it does seem clearly PD. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 22:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The argument put there is not a failure to renew, but a failure to have a copyright notice on the original publication. As things stand there is no way that we can definitively establish whether the story is public domain or copyright in the US. Perhaps the burden of proof for establishing a copyvio is on the person making that claim, but the burden of proof for showing where the work came from is on the contributor. The only evidence for a 1924 publication is the contributor's own say so. We don't know who the publisher was. We don't know if the original title was changed. We don't know if it was a part of a larger collection or magazine which may itself have been the subject of a blanket renewal for all items in that magazine issue. Eclecticology 00:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assuming it was written prior to 1962, it doesn't matter - I gave you the list of all renewed works by Connell - and this clearly doesn't appear there. It even lists magazine articles he wrote that were renewed - it still doesn't exist there. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 01:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to a 2006 edition on Google Books, the story was published in 1924. This website states that the story was published in Collier's Weekly, January 19, 1924. A search for "Collier's" in the copyright renewal database reveals no "blanket renewals". I believe this is enough evidence, and I propose changing PD-no-notice to PD-US-no-renewal and adding the information about its original publication in Collier's Weekly. Psychless 02:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are two more reliable sources for the specific publication information: [5] [6] Psychless 02:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. The simple fact that it was published in Collier's was the key piece of missing information without which the copyright status could not be checked, either now or by some future person that runs into it. Eclecticology 11:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since we seem to have reached consensus, I made the changes I recommended. Psychless 02:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have implemented Ambox here on Wikisource, in a fuller manner than ever before.

But now I wonder, is this a good style for them? Got any suggestions? ViperSnake151 18:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They're all very pretty, but why do we need each of them? Eclecticology 11:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's just it. Half of them are not relevant to Wikisource, and only belong on Wikipedia. This template needs to be updated and pruned to reflect that. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do use these occasionally. I think that the "license" shouldnt have a question mark. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very pretty! I will adapt them for using on --Zyephyrus 12:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I like some of the changes I am not sure about (nor understand) all of them. Particularly the creation of the many speedy delete templates. I think we were doing fine with just the one template there and would prefer more human understandable naming for templates in general.--BirgitteSB 16:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can {{Populate}} be switched over to ambox so it follows the same style? Suicidalhamster (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • That seems like yet another of these useless templates designed to state the obvious. If all the links to his works are red the prima facie conclusion is already that we don't have any works by this person. Eclecticology 23:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright question[edit]

Hello, Is this work in the public domain? Talk:On the Soul: published in England in 1931 by Ross, W. D. (William David), 1877-; Smith, J. A. (John Alexander), 1863-1939. Public domain according to IA: Evidence reported by scanner-Liz-Ridolfo for item worksofaristotle03arisuoft on Aug 23, 2006; no visible notice of copyright and date found; stated date is 1931; not published by the US government; a copyright renewal record could not be found. Yann 12:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Works of Aristotle Vol 3. has many contributors, most likely to be from the UK, and De Anima by Author:John Alexander Smith (1863–1939) is not PD in the UK until 2010, and even later in the US of course. So unless these translations also appeared prior to 1923, that djvu is covered by copyright. Note that the editorial comments by Author:W. D. Ross (1877 - 1971) will not be PD in the UK for a long time. I think it should be speedy deleted as an obvious copyvio. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This one is probably OK. We can't be sure that it wasn't published in the U.S. Wouldn't the list of cities on the back of the title page suggest that the book was simultaneously published in all the cities on the list? ... and that list includes New York. Renewal requirements would follow from that. Did Oxford apply for interim copyright as allowed in the Act in force in 1931? Lack of a copyright notice was never completely fatal; the innocent infringement clause allowed for copyright to still be enforced after notice to the apparent infringer. Surely Oxford is aware of the Internet Archive, but does not appear to have done anything in the two years that this work has been there. That may be sufficient for the doctrine of laches to apply. I suppose that someone could always write to Oxford to establish that they know of this possible infringement. If they do nothing then it would reinforce a laches claim. Eclecticology 09:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you know of any US case law regarding copyright and laches? I was under the impression it didnt apply to copyright. Regarding the place of first publication, URAA makes mention of the US publication needing to be within 30 days of the overseas publication date, which is why I drafted {{PD-URAA-same-year}}, in response to WS:S(2007-12)#Man-eaters of Kumaon eligible for posting here?. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have the exact citation at my fingertips, but it did come up favorably in a case about Scientology. I'll see if I can find it.
The 1909 Act did have a provision where at the time of foreign publication a notice of intent could be filed stating plans that the situation would be regularized within 4 months. In 1947 the allowable time was changed to five years. It would be interesting to find out whether there is an archive of such notices. A key element of that notice had to do with presenting copies for deposit in the Library of Congress. Eclecticology 12:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's very good news! Thanks, all of you. I have renamed the second translation of this same text On the Vital Principle because it was the real title given by the translator Charles Collier in 1855. So there will be no confusion, the title of Smith's translation being On the Soul.- --Zyephyrus 10:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These works were discussed at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2007-11#Categories. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that at least the first 10 volumes were published before 1923, so are in the PD in USA, and can be added in WS. The 3rd volume was published in 1908, and the 10th volume was published in 1921. See [7], [8], [9], and [10]. About De anima, by J. A. Smith, see the last link: Notes: Originally part of vol. 3 of The works of Aristotle, edited by W.D.Ross, 1908-31. Yann 13:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I separated the 2 editions added by Zyephyrus and added the license templates. I hope it's OK now. Yann 14:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't dispute 1931 as the original publication date for Smith's De anima. Scholarly editions of collected works are usually not published in numerical order, but are still guided by a long-range plan for the volumes where specific works will go. Volume 3 of this Aristotle is unusual for having internal title pages for each included work. Some of these go back well before 1931. Eclecticology 12:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The preface to Volume III says:

In this volume the last part of the translation to be published takes its place immediately before the first part to be published, the Parva Naturalia, which appeared in 1908. I must ask the indulgence of readers for the long interval that has elapsed between the two. The Great War, the death of some of the contributors before their translations were completed, the necessity for a considerable interchange of views between translators and editor, ..

And the preface is dated "21 February, 1931." This was noted by ResidentScholar at in the last discussion on this set of works: Wikisource:Possible copyright violations/Archives/2007-11#Categories. It is possible that this translation was published earlier, but OCLC 1237462 says 1931; the preface says 1931, and we dont yet have precise publication details of a prior publication. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John, in the page you give a link to, the book published in 1931 is said 'Originally part of vol. 3 of The works of Aristotle, edited by W.D.Ross, 1908-31.'. Our source is not that publication of 1931 with its own preface, our source is the previous publication 1908-1931 in which the De Anima was included in volume 3 ; the question is: was this volume 3 published before 1923 or not? Yann has given links that prove it was. So a 1931 preface doesn't change anything, does it? Have I misunderstood the whole point? --Zyephyrus 18:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The volumes are a series; volume 3 was the last volume published in the series, as I understand it.
I do not see the link that says De Anima was published prior to 1931. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It can't at the same time be published in 1931 and be signaled as having been originally a part of volume 3 if this volume 3 is published in 1931 too.
De Anima is in the same volume as De spiritu and it is published in 1908 here- --Zyephyrus 20:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All things considered, I have no problem with retaining this work. The balance of probabilities strike me as supportive of this position. At the same time it would be deceptive to suggest that it was first published in 1908 when all evidence points to a 1931 first publication. Eclecticology 20:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Title of this work[edit]

The title of the book was not translated by Smith; he retained the Latin title. This links back to another recent thread that had nothing to do with copyright; it leaves me wondering whether calling this On the soul is the right way to go. Eclecticology 12:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have moved On the Soul to De Anima (Aristotle) - --Zyephyrus 09:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Good. While I would certainly not call myself a scholar of Aristotle, this points to some interesting challenges in relation to how we handle classical authors. There are definitely POV issues connected with the mere translation of titles. These issues do not originate with us, but we do need to avoid getting caught up by the ancient POVs of others. The author page may be the best place to start sorting this out. Eclecticology 20:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US Appellate and (possibly Supreme Court) opinion index[edit] had created an index of US Appellate court opinions linking to the actual opinions on Wikipedia.

The work I had done was similar to the US Supreme Court database that was created by MZMcBride of Wikipedia:

An Index like this: List of United States Supreme Court cases

And pages for all of the volumes laid out as follows: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 95

It has been widely suggested at Wikipedia that Wikisource is a much better place to have such an index.

I wanted to get your guidance before I take on this task here.

Sincerely, Openjurist 21:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--- BTW, here is my discussion page - which is largely discussing this section:

This seems well suited for Wikisource. Yann 06:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As Wikipedia is currently wanting to address w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series, volume 178, could we tackle this first? We have been asked to assist if possible. What we do with the Federal Reporter will be very similar to what should happen with United States Reports.

It looks like you created all these pages on English Wikipedia with a bot. We would be happy to accept an almost identical copy. The key difference is that here on Wikisource, we name groups of pages by the title of the work, like "United States Code", "Congressional Record", "United States Statutes at Large", and "United States Reports". Volumes are then named using a subpage, such as United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1 and United States Reports/Volume 1.

Besides the naming, the text of w:List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series, volume 179 looks acceptable except for the wikilinks on the date - we dont have a page named "1950" - instead we have categories like 1950 works. The wikilinks to openjurist seem like a sensible addition to me.

The header and footer of each page will need to change a little. We use {{header}} on all pages, unless a more precise header is created for a work; e.g. {{header/US Code}}. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---Thank you for your instruction. It seems it is pretty much decided that the case volumes will be moved / recreated here. We, as in, are working on regiggering our template for Wikisource and we will create the appropriate Headers and Footers for F.2d, F.3d and US cases - I noticed that the US cases are a bit lacking in completeness. We are not using a bot - we have simply created a system to make it pretty quick (but tiring) to copy and paste the pages together. Be warned though - it will fill up your new pages log as I do it pretty quickly - even though it is by hand. Give us until this weekend / early next week to get it going. If the CAPTCHA for our account can be turned off that would be a great help - it really slows things down to have to type it each time. Openjurist 20:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IIRC the CAPTCHA disappears 4 days after the account is created. Yann 20:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---Hi Yann, I wanted to let you see what we have done so far: Federal Reporter, Second Edition, Federal Reporter, Third Edition, Federal Reporter, Second Edition/Volume 178 Let me know what you think... We are not using a bot ... but I can get the info up pretty quick manually. Just let me know. Openjurist 20:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It generally looks good, but I have a few small comments.
  1. Most important before it goes too far: - these should read "Second series", not "Second edition".

--DONE Openjurist 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. We can simply leave the author blank instead of repeating the title. (It would be interesting if our text for each individual case showed the judge writing the decision as the author; this could lead to the ability to easily call up all the decisions written by a specific judge.)
It would be on the individual case report anyway; there appears to have already been some attempt to do this with Supreme Court cases. I'm always on the lookout for ways to add valur. :-) Eclecticology 08:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Having 25 items in a row creates a line that is wider than the usual text width, and may require some readers to side-scroll. I would suggest cutting this down to 20.

--DONE ON F2D AND F3D. WE PATTERNED IT OFF OF US REPORTS - THAT HAS 25 ITEMS IN A ROW. Openjurist 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Another interesting option (which I won't push too hard because it means a lot of work) would be an additional column in each index page to show the broad kind of law considered by the case, i.e. criminal, tax, copyright, real estate, etc. Eclecticology 21:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I would like all of these pages to begin with "Federal Reporter/", as they are part of a single collection. To keep the URLs as short as possible, I suggested this naming format:

Alternatively, some other choices are:

John Vandenberg (chat) 02:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-- I USED: "Federal Reporter/First series/Volume 1" AS OUR TEMPLATE: Openjurist 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I certainly agree with keeping URLs as short as reasonably possible. Just putting numbers alone for the series may confuse people who do not know what these numbers are. I would tend to prefer the format Federal Reporter/Second series/Volume 1. The series statement can be omitted for the first series since it was never a part of the original title. It was only imputed retroactively when the second series started. Eclecticology 04:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would prefer that the first series is distinguished from the name of the work otherwise "Federal Reporter" needs to be an index to the volumes in the first series. I think that "Federal Reporter" should be a page with a description/overview of three series, which means the index of the first series needs to be underneath it, at Federal Reporter/First series. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


---I have gotten up to F2d 650: Today and will continue tomorrow. Openjurist 00:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at that last volume, and I see that United States v. Miller is already in blue, but the link is to an earlier (1939) Supreme Court case. It looks like we may need to consider some disambiguation algorithm to distinguish different cases with the same-named parties, or the same case when dealt with through the different court levels. Eclecticology 08:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---I agree there is some disambiguition that needs to be done ... also some of the titles are not quite perfect - e.g. too many defendant's names, trailing characters, etc. We have cleaned up a lot of them, but there are hundreds of thousands of cases and there are ones that have fallen through the cracks. Does Wikisource have volunteers who would like to help get them right? I will work on F3d cases shortly. Openjurist 23:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--- I have completed uploading F3d. If anyone would like to help with any case titles that need clean up that would be appreciated. Also, there are several cases on Wikisource already - making sure that the URLs of those cases are properly linked from the F2d and F3d pages would be important. Openjurist 21:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would also be happy to do US Supreme Court cases if there is interest? Openjurist 21:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of the sad truths here is that everyone who considers himself a regular already has a very long to-do list. I think that your project is very interesting and important! Any one of us, myself included, may help from time to time, but it would be unrealistic to believe that we will make this a priority. Presuming that you have some connection with the legal community your most likely avenue for rapid progress would be to recruit others willing to give this project a higher priority. We would all gain by that. Sorry if I sound too disappointing. Eclecticology 03:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Javascript errors in Internet Explorer 6[edit]

There are lots of JavaScript errors in IE6. I found one on Special:Search and a different one when loading this page. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IE 6 is just plain bad. Wikimedia uses some advanced Javascript at times, which unfortuneately doesn't work too well on poor quality browsers. I think it's usually OK for reading normal pages, though? —Giggy 14:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Time to stop giving a rat's about that browser. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd also say forget supporting IE6, and I'd even go as far as saying that Wikipedia's IE support ought to begin at IE8 (not released yet, but from the looks of the beta it'll be the most standards-compliant IE yet) and that we ought to otherwise encourage use of IE8. Maybe there could be a little note at the top of the page, one which appears just for IE < 8 visitors, that says "For users of the Internet Explorer browser this site displays best in version 8." I guess you'd want to say "version 7" until IE8 is formally released (and, oh, okay, wait a few months after for it to be vetted).
But also, it would improve site usability to put try-catch statements into the javascript that John mentions to indicate that the errors are due to an unsupported browser.--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 19:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's not go encouraging any proprietary browser. Sure they're finally getting around to supporting 10 year old standards, but if any browser is encouraged, let it be an open source one. I would be all for some message for the Epsilon-minuses using IE6 that links to some page summarizing browser features and standards compliance. See; [11] (and I do mean see it in IE6; or see; [12] and note that the page is from 2004). Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're happy with IE, John, and don't wish to change browser, you could consider merely upgrading to IE7, the latest version. This might help in regards to the elimination of the problems you've been having. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont use IE unless I am forced to. I've been happily using mozilla since milestone 16. :-) My concern is for IE6 users who may be visiting Wikisource. Can we confirm that the problem doesnt exist when viewed in IE7? John Vandenberg (chat) 12:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From the resident Luddite's perspective there is an important point here. The average user's computer literacy is even considerably less than my own. Anon's suggestion that Jack upgrade from IE6 to IE7 makes sense here when he is speaking from one active Wikimedian to another, but one still needs to allow for the fact that there are users for whom that distinction is beyond their literacy. Any browser change implies changes in how one does things in browsing activity; well-worn habits become subject to unpredictable changes. Eclecticology 16:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to clarify, I don't use IE6; I merely keep a copy of it, and most other browsers, around to see what the semi-moron browser does with good code. I use Firefox 3 as my primary browser, as does John. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see what you're saying, Eclecticology, and I can actually appreciate that in particular going from IE6 to IE7 would be annoying because MS moved all of the buttons around (which I think they did on purpose, to make it different from Fire Fox etc., so that once someone becomes accustomed to IE7 they'll find the layout of other browsers annoying... but that's a whole other discussion.) But the thing is that supporting IE6 can be a huge increase in effort for the web developer - it can easily result in several times the time and effort to fix any given problem. You get something working properly in, say Opera, and it works perfectly in every other browser - Fire Fox, Safari, even IE7 much of the time, but then you run into some horrendously complicated and subtle error due to the quirkiness of IE6. And when you figure out how to get it working in IE6, it breaks in all the other browsers, and you have to go back and forth... Sometimes this happens in, say, Fire Fox too, but by far it's most often IE6 causing headaches.
I don't know how much resources the Wikisource project has to throw at problems like these, but my guess would be that a better return on investment would be had for them to work on other stuff and wait for the world to upgrade to the newer and more standards-compliant (i.e. easier to fix) versions of Internet Explorer. I'd say, someone ought to take a look at it and see if it's an easy fix, but if it turns out to be complicated don't bother breaking your back trying to fix it, maybe just try to make the error message clear.
John, I don't get any error messages in IE7 from loading those pages, nor in IE8 Beta 1 for that matter.--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 20:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It sounds like these errors aren't too serious. If there is an error that prevents someone from using the site properly, then we should try to fix it; but if it's a few warnings in the error console that someone wouldn't notice unless they were really looking for them, then it may not be a priority. Really, I think the best we could hope for us for things to degrade gracefully -Steve Sanbeg 00:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes (and for the record I'm using Fire Fox), but Internet Explorer in true Microsoft style has put itself in a privileged position. There are sites out there that only recognize some version of IE, so I need to keep it available even if I don't normally use it. Still, I just checked on the two computers that I have active in front of me. Both were on IE6, but I could only upgrade the more recent system. IE7 cannot be used with Windows98. I may not be the only one with that problem. Eclecticology 00:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps we should consider the formulation of a policy or general information page regarding browser problems and how to fix them? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The general information page would probably be good; a policy page wouldn't work if most of the people who need it can't understand it. Eclecticology 06:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(mostly to Struthious Bandersnatch's points)
I'm a developer and IE6 certainly necessitates a lot of extra work and testing; and this is work I'm largely skipping these days. I read recently (just days ago, but forget where) that IE6 usage was under 25%, IE7+ at a bit over 25% and Firefox a bit over 42%, with Mac/Safari taking most of the rest. Oftentimes supporting IE6 requires forgoing something that it simply can't do, so everyone gets the degraded experience. My view is that if something fails catastrophically for users of the browser that rode the short bus, then it worth some effort to deal with, and that whatever is being attempted may be a bit too bleeding edge. But if things degrade gracefully enough, and I move that bar lower at a steady pace, then fine.
Perchance the best move the wmf projects could make would be to have a nag-message at the top of every page directing those running IE6 to the Firefox download page; omit a [dismiss] link. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(further) I just opened this page and the search page in IE6 and a) didn't get any js messages and b) something about User:Struthious Bandersnatch/template/comment is rendering poorly in IE6; it's all bold and rather run together. I looked at the code and stopped when I saw all the non-standard ms crap that really should not be used anywhere (anywhere at all). Such uses of transclusion and browser specific code should be discouraged. See here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FF3 is the browser I use. Some developers are too inexperienced to recognize the standard CSS property "opacity" or its equivalent for IE6, which doesn't support that property; but I'll forgive you for that. Cheers,--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 02:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ya, right. I was referring to the filter and zoom; and I'll not forgive your abuse of transclusion. Jack Merridew 06:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No more "Cheers" to cover up the nastiness, hmm? As I said, inexperienced developers are often unable to recognize the IE6 equivalents of "opacity".
And "abuse of transclusion"? Like you wouldn't be just as loudly and clumsily looking for opportunities to engage in MS-bashing if I had subst'ed that. I argued against supporting IE6 and even IE7 above and I use FF3 primarily; just accept that you simply guessed wrong in rushing to pick a fight with someone you believed to be an IE-advocate (probably due to inexperience with CSS, as I've demonstrated.)
(If by some chance you haven't been trying to pick a fight here, I apologize for my gruffness; but what you've said above seem like pretty obvious, persistent and escalating attempts to poke me in the eye.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 10:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll take the apology and call this thread over. Let's try and do better next time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, uh, "let's". And if "we" aren't trying to poke someone in the eye, "let's" try to explain and / or apologize for that next time. (I would suggest that you stop following up abrasive or rhetorically manipulative remarks with "Cheers," it really just sounds all the more disingenuous and patronizing. It certainly isn't very well calculated to get me to accept an unapologetic request to end the thread, one which completely fails to disavow, much less even acknowledge, the hostility of your comments.)
Another thing - you want to be the one to declare when this thread is over, you want to tell other people what browser to use, you want to tell other people to not write cross-browser code, you apparently want to tell me how to write my comments... I would submit that you are displaying some control issues here. That's all I'll say about it, but feel free to continue this thread or not as you wish. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 11:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to say that I'm amused, since I've now had differences with both of you over template issues. The above technicalities just leave us luddites scratching our heads. :-) Eclecticology 16:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I believe you two lost sight of the real opponent here. You are supposed to keep Ec engaged in a disagreement at all times so he cannot change all of Wikisource to plain text. It takes him much longer to type rebuttals to arguments than comedy reviews, so refocus here before he replaces all of your shiny templates.--BirgitteSB 02:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could this be extended to skin-specific code? A lot of ideas are developed for MonoBook that don't work in other skins. It sometimes feels like the same kind of pressure to use MonoBook that our favorite whipping boy would use to get us to use MS Windows. Eclecticology 17:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with header template[edit]

I was trying to put header at but it is not coming correctly. Some of the text, though it is appearing once in the template, is appearing twice on the saved page. Please advise.

I have fixed this by using commencing the author field with [[Author:U.G. Krishnamurti|U.G. Krishnamurti]]. When the author field starts with a "[", it is special - the template does not trying to link to an author page. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CSS class "printonly"[edit]

I ported {{citation}} over from WP a little while ago but I was surprised to find that it works differently here: it dumps out the URL after the citation text.
I finally figured out why; the URL is wrapped in <span class="printonly"></span>. I don't see that CSS class in the Wikisource style sheets. Could someone with access please port that over here from WP? Thanks in advance.
Seems to be just this style rule from w:MediaWiki:Common.css:
@media screen, handheld, projection {
    cite *.printonly {
        display: none;
--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 22:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done John Vandenberg (chat) 00:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It worked! Yay! So, uh, a little announcement: the {{citation}} template is fully operational. Fire at will.--❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 00:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Texts to be split[edit]

I have split the following 2 texts, but they are still showing under the "Texts to be split" page. Is there any additional action needed? I have already removed the split template.
Please advise.--Neetika.Kapoor 02:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are no longer in Category:Texts to be split. --John Vandenberg (chat) 07:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Wikisource The Place For A Collaborative Biography For A Recently Passed San Diego Jazz Musician[edit]