From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in October 2010, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.



Other discussions[edit]


Transclusion breaks sidenotes[edit]

I thought this might have been a problem with my browser, but it seems to show up in both Firefox and Chrome.

For some reason, pages that use sidenotes (which occur pervasively in the United States Statutes at Large) have recently stopped displaying correctly when the underlying Page: pages are transcluded into the main namespace.

Here’s an illustration: Volume 1 of the Statutes at Large, page 73 (right-side sidenotes displayed correctly) and page 74 (left-side sidenotes displayed correctly), but when the content of those pages are transcluded (to Judiciary Act of 1789), the sidenotes overlap with the main column of text. Help? Tarmstro99 (talk) 14:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to affect all of them though; all of the Alien and Sedition Acts are fine. Very strange... —Spangineerwp (háblame) 14:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
FWIW... I'm not seeing any overlap between the sidenotes and the main column of text through the entire transcuded page (sections 1 to 35 of the Judiciary Act) here. May have something to do with the fix for search results across page breaks just above. Just noticed that the links back to the to the individual djvu pages usually to the left of the main text column aren't there for Chapter 20 (the Act) here, though that might be by design?? George Orwell III (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
One difference: the Alien and Sedition Acts use the {{Page}} template for transclusion, while the other acts use the <pages> tag. So perhaps it’s a <pages> problem? I have only noticed the error showing up during the last week or so, so it cannot have been around very long. Would it be helpful if I posted a screenshot of the error? (On my screen, the blue links to the individual scanned pages do indeed show up in the left margin, although they too are much closer to the central column of text than they should be, even if they do not actually overlap with it as the right sidenotes do.) Tarmstro99 (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
And now Alien and Sedition Acts are broken too, after ThomasV made the change he did (previous section). So it's pretty clearly an unintended consequence of fixing the issue above. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 18:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Lost the links back to the .djvu pages here as well for the A&S Acts when they were there earlier today. Still not seeing the overlaps on the right over the main content but its almost sure that has more to do with my settings here than the lack of a real ongoing issue. It does seem tied to the searching across page breaks fix above which is a real shame because using sidenotes also caused the same poor search results by breaking phrases just as the page breaks did. George Orwell III (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
A further wrinkle: I just added United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/3rd Congress/1st Session/Chapter 6, and when I clicked the “show preview” button, the page displayed correctly, with sidenotes off to the side and not overlapping the main column of text. As soon as I clicked “Save page,” however, the problem returned; the sidenotes leaped from the right margin into the body text to the left. Using “Show preview” with other pages in the Statutes at Large collection also seems to display everything correctly. So the problem would appear to lie with some snippet of code that is not executed in preview mode, if that helps to narrow things down at all. Tarmstro99 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I fixed it ; it was related to the sidenotes templates ThomasV (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Everything seems to be back to normal. Tarmstro99 (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, broken again. Tarmstro99 (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Page should be validated[edit]

This PAGE should have been marked validated, but after inserting and saving with the image, it reverted to proofread. Can someone explain what I did wrong? - Ineuw (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

you probably used the wrong button : you marked it as proofread : [1] ThomasV (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had to save it interim because I was having problems with the Commons upload, and didn't want to loose my work. Probably clicked on proofread incorrectly. Is it possible to have it marked validated? I am validating pages of PSM that were proofread by others from THIS LIST. - Ineuw (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I just marked it as proofread. You can now mark it as validated. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 17:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. - Ineuw (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Done it again[edit]

Could someone please mark this PAGE 'validated as it should be. I mucked up the saving process when tested a new title template. Thanks. - Ineuw (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done marked as validated. — George Orwell III (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. - Ineuw (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic layout[edit]

Text transcluded from the page namespace needs to be placed inside a div with margin, in order to properly render page numbers. There is currently no standard practice for doing this. I think that the layout should depend on the choice of the user. So I’ve built-in the possibility to dynamically change the layout used to render a page. The text must be placed inside the {{BeginText}} and {{EndText}} templates. Example : The Elizabethan People/Chapter 1 ; you should see a "layout" link in the display options. Three layouts are defined in Common.js ; users may also create new layouts and add them to their preferences.

ThomasV (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

PS : I tried to display transcluded images on the right of the text in the "column" layout, but this is not ready ; it will require more coding. ThomasV (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The default ought to be indented page, enough to clear the page links, and let the reader control the rest (if they need to!?). Any plans to implement this at other wikimedia sites? ... there is a very large document that doesn't impose width or justification on its millions of readers. cygnis insignis 19:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I made the full-width layout the default one. The column layout, with fixed-width column, reproduces the standard rendering, and the third layout, with a floating column and the title box on the right, is inspired by the standard layout. ThomasV (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Justification is nigh-deprecated at, a user might want to switch it on, but they can't easily switch it off. With the surrounding white space, I'm not the only one who finds it harder to read. Narrow columns increase the amount of scrolling, I lose my place with that too. That's the summary I something I made have a lot of noise about. cygnis insignis 22:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
You're completely wrong, you are forcing now a default layout well known to cause trouble to many readers. Narrow width allow faster reading, many study showed it, do you know why double column text is used in books ? Phe (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I do know why that is, and I explain what, where and how. I also give reasons to enact or avoid something. And I'm aware of how wiki communities can invert and dissemble clear and simple solutions, for political point scoring.. Users can select a wide column, or narrow, neither is right, it is unresolvable, that is the the point, they are not bloody stupid or they wouldn't be here. I'm not saying anybody's preference is wrong, it is just that - a preference!!! This is actually my reason for opposing fixed width, and similar regimes, I'm stopping anybody forcing anything. First the claim to make the decision is seized by someone, some else comes along and says, with as much justice, that they are right and 45 em is what that text needs. If I have two windows side-by-side, the text is hidden if it less than your preference, or anybody elses. 14:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
ok, I’ve turned off justification in the first layout ; I was not aware that it had some opponents. Your view on narrow columns is interesting ; are you aware that there is an ideal line width for reading? numerous quantitative studies have shown that beyond a certain width, the human eye has too much horizontal scrolling to perform, and that it gets similarly lost. ThomasV (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The counter-argument to that is that fixing width wastes screen real-estate, and forces the same option for all users, whereas a user who wants narrower lines can easily just adjust their window width. For some reason people pooh-pooh that argument, as though HTML wasn't specifically designed for dynamic layout in a user agent whose canvas size is under the control of the user. Hesperian 06:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
So rather to give reader a correct layout you prefer to put the burden on them? User expect working site, not things that must be tweaked here and there. This has already been discussed in Mediawiki:Common.css, as said Jack Merridew, user surf with a full-screen view and default settings. Phe (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
[Please excuse the correction, Phe, an unfortunate error] What is a 'correct width'? There are dozens of notions here about what that might be, the point is that we should not override the reader's own preferences. I'll repeat what I said elsewhere, wikipedia does not do this, are the millions of articles and their readers suffering from a lack of fixed width. What is unique about this site, if other sites fix the width it is to wrap their samples of text in 3MB of advertising - they suck, we don't. I reckon it is people supposing there is something significant about the look of the page in print, readers don't care or know how to fix it. If they can read, they can or have adjusted thier setting and prefrences. Don't ask Jack, I am the stupid end user ... after learning how to using a mouse, I was shown how to resize the window and text. They change it once for every website, like wikipedia, and adjust when there is a problem. As screens get wider, for the affluent, this will be something that will only become easier. They will be reading online, not glancing at it. A top-down approach like this does not accord with any of wikimedia's principles. cygnis insignis 13:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you get the point, end user ask for site working at best with window in full size, you are asking them to do thing than near to nobody does or do only if they are really bored by something, end user will just found hard to read wikisource and only a part of them will be enough bored to change their window size. For ADS, what's your point exactly, some site sort of misuse the fact than narrow width is needed, right, and ? Phe (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
... and Wikipedia! I have sought any point to this, I haven't found it. People see and preserve some archaic and redundant page element, then insist on keeping it when they finally work out how to render it, no matter it is pointless and unrelated to getting more text, or how much noise is generated as texts get claimed for one idea of correct width. The assertion was in a comment from User:Jack Merridew, that other sites restrict the width. I suggested this is one of the reasons why, it is advertising real estate, because similar site to ours don't. I doubt they get complaints "I came to get a source and the page filled my window with text, I'm never returning!" Neither does wikipedia, and no one has answered why it should be any different here. cygnis insignis 14:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, I was thinking you know something about the trouble with unconstrained line width. Too wide line ask people to use head movement rather eye movement, head movement must be avoided because they are slower and less precise, study show people read in a faster way if they don't need to move there head. There is also other problem caused by movement (more frequent headache, trouble to retrieve the begin of the line etc.). It's a well studied field. People don't complain against too wide line because most know nothing about this problem. It's why I asked somewhere else if you know why double column is in use in wide book like encyclopedia. Phe (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that to me. I tried to read the wikipedia articles on the topic, but I kept losing my place when moving my head from side to side. I got the manual for my computer out, it suggests I should also move back from the screen. Good advice. cygnis insignis 15:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Look like we are going nowhere since you have no argument but sarcasm, nice to see how you are treating people working here. Phe (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
In the absence of reasons and discussion, one does what what can to make people think for themselves. I'm addressing the issue, you've been addressing me personally, and not in a polite way today. If one adopts an experimental and maverick position, 'I know how wide this should be for everyone, they don't get to choose, and I don't need to say why wikipedia is wrong!' the only option left is to personalise the issue when people start to object. I used sarcasm to emphasise that you were painting me as an idiot... Unless your intention was to portray me in a bad light, and how "nice" it is to see, your last comment is sarcastic and directed at me personally. Answer the questions or start on a new thread on that. cygnis insignis 16:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The so called absence of reason are scientific study you are just ignoring and replied to with sacarcsm. I didn't ask for sarcasm, as the layout things it's something you are trying to enforce blindly, so you didn't want to answer to slower reading caused by line too width. Phe (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring it, I'm ignorant of its results. Can you forward that study to me, or giving a citation, or at least providing their scientific determination of the 'right width'. You can take it to wikipedia and lobby for the change there as well. Then bring it back here, cygnis insignis 19:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
"Another common factor that hinders the speed of reading is head movement. ... Head movement tends to tie down the speed of the eye movements to the speed of the head" Reading and Comprehension L.B. Lakshmi - 2003 Phe (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I suppose it would, and that the grey matter behind the eyes is well accustomed to avoiding pointless labour. If it is the case that people are moving their heads, they would change their settings. Does the study also say that people do not do this, that wikipedia is handicapping their users by avoiding this. And Gutenberg, and so on. Did you open the discussion at a wikipedia? Why implement here and not there? What is this width this authority prescribes? The wikimedia community goes along with it, so will I. Then we can can start restoring those hyphens we have been removing, and take out the blanklines between paragraphs, to suit the width and justification of the new wikimedia pages. Presumably you champion that because a study also supported that layout. Don't dilly-dally around this little sister with these crucial concepts, go over to the wikipedias and start getting those changed. cygnis insignis 20:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I never talk about changing en:wp setting, why should I start that ? Phe (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, that is one of the questions I posed, "Why implement here and not there?" Does the authority provide answers to my other questions, or just explain that shaking your head interferes with comprehension? I vaguely remember a teacher giving this instruction to some pupils, so I doubt the study discovered that fact and question its relevance. I assume you need a fix width to implement an indented, justified text, with hyphens where the word breaks occur, as we are discuss-
ing at MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Prose. If these 'typographical tricks' that 'helps the reader' are better than our standard layout, it should be implemented at all the wikipedias, wikisources, and other sisters. cygnis insignis 10:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
well, my intent is not to start a discussion on which layout choices are better, but to give users a way to configure their layout very easily. The various wikisource subdomains have taken very different routes when it comes to layout, which suggests that there is no ideal solution. ThomasV (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
There is some discussion at MediaWiki_talk:Common.css. It is unsurprising that a contributor forms another opinion on the 'right width' when another's opinion is inflicted on them, it is is never ending and pointless. What would happen is this sort of thing was introduced to wikipedia? Why should this site any different? Why preserve a constraint of a printed page? Most displays have a wide aspect, users know how to control what is presented. The only reason presented is the user won't or cannot adjust their display, how do the millions of readers at wikipedia get by? This should be removed, and let us focus on the reasons we are here. The only complication we have is the display of the page numbers, solved by the indented page class. cygnis insignis 09:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Add: It is not just language domains that have taken their own path, this sort of thing is imposed by projects within this site. The display of documents depends on who did it, what looked 'right' on their screen, with their own preferences. cygnis insignis 09:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Please note that my proposal does not impose any constraint on printed pages; the default layout reproduces the default settings of this wiki, or at least it is supposed to.
For the indentation, I do not think that the direct use of a css class is a good choice ; there is no way to keep track of all the instances where the class is used, and on some pages the user will not even use the class, but manually add their own style to a div (which imposes a contraint on printed pages, btw). In contrast, if the div is added through a template, then it is possible to reconfigure it very easily, and to know where it is used. And if you decide to use a template, it costs nothing to include more than one div ; I figured out that three divs are necessary for the kind of layout used at the German Wikisource, this is why I put three of them in the template.
Now, since this is using javascript, another option would be to use no template at all, and to detect the presence of page numbers with javascript; whenever page numbers are detected, the bodyContent can be wrapped in an additional div for indentation. The advantage of this method is that most pages will not need any change ; however, it will conflict with pages where a fixed-width div has already been added.
ThomasV (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I really like this idea a lot. I must ask, though, what Layout 3 is trying to replicate. To me it seems a bit clunky with the header smushed in the upper right (especially since the footer is still displayed right below the text rather than to the right of the text). The other two layouts I think are great.
And I have another question. Would it ever be possible to create a layout that is entirely defined by the viewer? Like, the person clicks to a Layout 4, and then a number of fields are given to allow him to define width, justification, and various things like that (maybe it would save everything in the user's monobook)? I only ask because people might want to customize their own layout on this site and might not want to (or know how) to chop up their monobook with the appropriate CSS classes/ids to do so.
Anyway, I think this is a great start with some nice potential.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 12:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Layout 3 is trying to replicate the layout generally used at Check for example here ; the title and bibliographical informations are placed in a box on the right of the text, and the text column has a variable width that changes when the window is resized. It is indeed a bit clunky to have the navigation footer in the text and not the header, but it is possible to change that. See for example fr:Pierrot (Contes de la bécasse) ; if you select "Maquette 3", you can see that the title box with bibliographical information is on the right, but that navigation bars are with the text, at the top and bottom.
A layout entirely defined by the user without knowing anything about css seems difficult; What we could envision is a kind of mouse drag interface to define the size and position of the text column.
ThomasV (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Following the previous remark, I deleted the above mentioned templates, and went for a pure javascript method ; the same script inserts the page numbers and manages the different layouts. It is therefore no longer necessary to transclude pages inside a div with indentation (class "indented-page") or fixed width (class "prose"). For sanity, the script disables those classes if they are encountered. This should rejoice both haters and lovers of the "prose" class. ThomasV (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, the intents was good but it is now misused to enforce a wrong default layout. Can we get back to the old where contributors knowing what they are doing can improve the readability of the site ? Phe (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
BTW, you can't disable the class prose css, else you can get this [2]. Phe (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
And I’m not certain whether this problem flows from tweaking the layout scripts, but it appears that the WS:S#Transclusion breaks sidenotes problem is now back again as of this morning. Tarmstro99 (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
can you explain what a "wrong default layout" is ? does it refer to any layout that you do not like ? the default layout that I used in my script reflected the choices of this community. Even though I agree that full width is not very readable, I see no reason why a particular text should not comply with the choices of the community. Layout choices should not depend on the contributor who adds the text ; texts should always be added in a layout neutral form. The final layout should depend only on the device that is used to render the text. The javascript I tried to propose is an implementation of such devices. ThomasV (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Layout depends already on the text itself. You can't display scientific text containing table and math the same way novel and all. A wrong default layout will show a table taking half width on the scan and displayed on a screen with a 60em size. — Phe (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Two questions[edit]

Hello folks! I am sorry to disturb you, but I have only two questions. The first: can we place here books or texts written in Scots. The second question: I have a translation from the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (I see there are here many delightful English translations of it), in Scots. Can I propose it to this wiki? Friendly,

--El Translatore (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Scots is one of the English languages (broad definition), so is acceptable. Yes, we accept {{versions}} of works as long as they meet the public domain criteria. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
It is done...!
--El Translatore (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with <pages>[edit]

Can anyone tell me why here, at the break between page 40 and page 41, <pages> is inserting a paragraph break? In similar situations higher up (page 31/32, page 33/34) it works just fine. - Htonl (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

probably because you have unbalanced divs at page 40 ThomasV (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Do I? I mean, yes, there's a div left open on page 40, but it's closed on page 41. - Htonl (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Fixed it. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks v. much. - Htonl (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Now I have a similar problem at Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996/original/Chapter 2, where the page-break occurs in the middle of a table (for example, at the beginning of page 10). Can one get <pages> to play nicely with tables? - Htonl (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

When you start a table row column in the non-included header, you need to close it with the HTML </td> tag in the Page: namespace in order for it transclude properly into the main namespace. I fixed a few that I could find already. Personally, I use {{Subsec row}} now to avoid this "quirk" at times but aplying it just makes editing more user intensive than it probably should be. George Orwell III (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Thanks also for your ideas about layout on the talk page, although since the whole text is transcribed now I'm probably not going to go back and change it all. But I might use those ideas on other texts. - Htonl (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Solution against the broken external links: back up the Internet[edit]

For two years, allows the French Wikipedia to read the external sites, which URL are in its article, even if they're stopped, thanks to a link [Archive] after each URL. Today they're proposing to extend their backups to us, and it's working on the French Wiktionary. Could we please get a consensus to install it here? JackPotte (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example: do you see the reference at the bottom of wikt:fr:welcome? I've just added it and the archive link is already available. JackPotte (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Some help needed[edit]

After some years, here I'm again. In the meantime, I worked a lot into it.source. I found here lots of changes, lots of new tricks... and, I imagine, lots of new conventions. I created a new Index: Index:Horses and roads.djvu. Can any of you take a look sometimes, just to see if there's any major mistake? Thanks! --Alex brollo (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks George Orwell III! :-) --Alex brollo (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
No problem. You might need to tweak the front matter naming for illustrations, dedications, the Preface, etc., but the TOC and chapter & page numbering line up with scans now. I wasn't sure where you were going to go with linking; if it was going to point back into the Page: namespace or to the eventual transcluded page(s) so I left that to you to edit. I assumed you wanted the Chapter start-pages to the bottom-right of each entry so I tabled the whole thing based on your original div & style values. You may neeed to trim those styles out of each row for the eventual transclusion when finishing up if using the indented-page class to enclose everything (if that's the way you decide to go at some point that is). Good Luck. George Orwell III (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
There are lots of questions I'd like to drag! here I am to learn - as much as possibile. My suggestion is to use Index talk:Horses and roads.djvu as a "central discussion page" for that book, if you like, and if such an idea conforms with en.source policies. I'l appreciate any help, suggestion, example, criticism and so on... here I'll only mention my exotic tries to format data into a tabular frame, without using table tags (using only div and css styles). I found this approach very interesting, and new. Obviuosly I used here an explicit and verbose code, a rather impressive one, since I don't want to create new templates into a badly known environment; but I'm using div + style templates based for such purpouse into it.source, and first results are deeply rewarding. See any of you interested & willing into that talk page!--Alex brollo (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Need help with finding a book to add to our collection[edit]

Hey guys, I would like to try to scan a book at home with my flatbed scanner. I need suggestions. I'll pay for everything. I can't make any promises it'll get on the wiki because this will be my first attempt, but I would like to try. Any ideas? I would like a $10 limit including shipping and handling if that is possible. Please find something on if possible too. Thanks. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have much luck looking through Amazon (ideally you'd want something pre-1923, as that guarantees that it's in the public domain, but Amazon's date information seems to be rather haphazard). However, eBay has some cheap antiquarian books - if you search under books, the period and within your price range. (I tried to just link to the search results but that triggered the spam filter). The binding might also be an issue as well with a flatbed scanner but I'm not sure what would eb best. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Another good site is --Longfellow (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No Wikisource Items On Cafe Press[edit]

Hey guys, just thought I would let you know that there are currently no items available on Cafe Press for Wikisource. Here is the link for that. Hopefully, with some help we can fix this. What do you guys think? I think it would be great if we could spread the word about Wikisource through t-shirts! --Mattwj2002 (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked for the Wikisource logo at Meta:Talk:Store way back in December '08, and was utterly ignored. I suspect that this particular volunteer-run WMF income stream is not really being managed in any meaningful way. :-( Hesperian 09:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
:) I would love to have a Wikisource T-shirt --Diego Grez (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, I sent an e-mail to Jay Walsh about this. I am hoping that we can get our Wikisource logo published on some t-shirts and other products. I also included a link to this topic of discussion. So many other other projects have a t-shirt why shouldn't we? Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikinews, Commons, and Wikipedia (of course). Anyways, just thought I would mention it. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys, I just wanted to let everyone know that I heard back from Jay Walsh. He said they are looking for an alternative to Cafe Press. Jay would like to have more news on this by the end of the year, if not sooner. He implied also that Wikisource would be included with the new product source (and possibly other projects not included). I hope that helps. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A new experimental template[edit]

I introduced a new experimental template, {{Anchor2}}; for now, its name is the same used into it, la and ru.source, but IMHO it has to be renamed here since here templates have simple, explicit, neat names and § symbol could be confusing too . It is an anchor template; the idea is to highlight some text related to the anchor when the anchor is the target of a link. I presume, it has been introduced first into it.source to link wikiquote with wikisource, since it's possible to highlight exactly the text quoted into wikisource when a link, coming from wikiquote, finds its target into wikisource. Nevertheless, many other uses can be thought, and there are some more complex templates into it.source that use it as an "internal tool".

To highlight the target, so far, you have to use Firefox (it uses css3) and to add a little bit of code to your vector.css:

span.InvisibleAnchor:target {background-color:#DEF;} /* highlights the "invisible anchor" obtained using Template:§ */

Take a look if you like. --Alex brollo (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple of examples.
  • This link points to Divina Commedia by Dante Alighieri into it.source.
  • This link points to first paragraph of Promessi Spoisi, by Alessandro Manzoni. --Alex brollo (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Assistance with PDF scan to text[edit]

I have an unpublished college honors thesis (13,000 words) entitled "American Journals and the Strategic Bombing of Germany". I only have a hard-copy of it (as the digital file from 1990 has been lost). I can easily make a PDF image scan of the document, but I don't know how to use DjVU to convert a PDF scan into something that (through OCR) will be more workable as text. Could someone help me with that? It would greatly assist me in writing a section about Strategic Bombing in Europe, over on Wikibooks. I am undecided about releasing it under a free license (other than the section intended for Wikibooks), but that may be moot, as it may not apply under Wikisource terms of eligible documents. You can reply here, and if you could also ping me on my e-mail (thekohser .at. gmail), that would be great. If this is a time-consuming task, I will compensate $10 per hour. -- Thekohser (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There are online conversion services, eg. , which are free and fairly straightforward. You can also obtain software to do it on your hard disk.

The precedents range from 'sounds good' to 'delete with prejudice'. We are not publishers, in a restricted sense of the term, what evidence is there that others would benefit from access it. How do you see it as matching inclusion criteria, would you, for example, expect to see it on a bookshelf in physical library? What part does not fit the [mercurial] inclusion criteria of wikibooks? cygnis insignis 16:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, after a hiccup with Document Express DjVu Plug-in for Firefox, I'm happily working with a stand-alone reader called WinDjView 1.0.3. I have text! Thanks for putting me in the right direction. I'll work on my obligation to Wikibooks now, then maybe later we can see if Wikisource even wants this "self-published" text. By the way, it is in fact available physically at the Emory University Woodruff Library, Special Collections, and in the regular stacks, at U4.5 .K65. -- Thekohser (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
You sometimes have to be patient, and make sure you tick the 'accept conditions' boxi, but it is a bit hit and miss. And yes, that is evidence in my book ;-) Good luck with that project, I must remember to have a look sometime. cygnis insignis 17:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
For the time being, I'm rebuilding the thesis in full, but on an "all rights reserved" basis, over here. I'm going to see if this is any sort of draw for natural search traffic. If it isn't, then I might decide to release the rights to copyleft. We'll see. -- Thekohser (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, the completed output on Wikibooks is found here. -- Thekohser (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


I have created MediaWiki:Editnotice-104, which loads Index:VCH Bedfordshire 1.djvu/Editnotice when you edit Page:VCH Bedfordshire 1.djvu/1. This should work for all Index/Page combinations. This is similar to Wikipedia w:Template:Editnotice load, however I think we will probably only need a few very specific edit notices.

Note that in order to create the /Editnotice page, I needed to disable JavaScript. --John Vandenberg (chat) 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Transcluded (proofread) books cannot be exported[edit]

It seems there is a bug turning proofread pages (like: Picturesque New Zealand and Picturesque New Zealand/Chapter 1) into books (the "Create a book" and "Download as PDF" functions) as it only uses the code from proofread pages - they are just transcluded <pages>. See: Wikisource talk:ProofreadPage#PDF and proofraed. feydey (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a bug report about this a few months ago. There's a ticket for the issue but it hasn't been solved yet. In the mean time, you can get around it by creating a new text and transcluding the pages directly, eg. "{{Page:Picturesque New Zealand, 1913.djvu/25}}{{Page:Picturesque New Zealand, 1913.djvu/26}}" and so forth. That might be more work than you really want to bother with, of course, and doesn't help with casual downloads.. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


Dear friends, I know that a book in never finished into a perfect form, but Horses and roads IMHO can be considered "proofread". It's time to go back at home, it.source. I learnt a lot, and I'll come back to add something to that book, that's mostly important for any horse lover, and to see your addings & fixes into it, and to learn more from them. I can't thank enough User:Ineuw, User:Cygnis insignis and User:George Orwell III for their suggestions and help. See you again! Arrivederci! --Alex brollo (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Help needed with table border[edit]

I formatted the single borders lines of THIS TABLE except I don’t know how to format the top border which requires a double line. Could someone please look at it?

Also, since this is my first complex table, I would appreciate any pointers/comments whether there are other (quicker) methods to format table borders of this type? So far, I have 100 tables in PSM, tagged to be formatted, and would like to reduce the edit/proofreading time if possible. Thanks. - Ineuw (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Done Ineuw.
I always study thiese html-css issues in w3h schools, and this time too the answer to your problem has been found into a few minutes here: --Alex brollo (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
About general help to build tables: it:User:Aubrey told me that if you build tables using OpenOffice, then you can export them in "wiki language". Test such a suggestion! --Alex brollo (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that didn’t properly save my reply, so I want again to thank Alex and billinghurst. for the changes made. It explains issues that were unclear. I do spend a lot of time on w3schools before posting here, but this issue eluded me. I also installed OpenOffice. Thanks again. - Ineuw (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone object to structuring the Portal: namespace?[edit]

I'm thinking of just going ahead and doing it - creating a structure based on the Library of Congress Classification system. There's a note about it in the Proposals section above and I've gone into detail about it on my LCC Proposal user subpage (probably too much detail but I kept thinking of new things to add). Anyway, I'm not sure if a lack of comment is generally positive, generally negative, ambivalent or just that no one noticed.

To summarise my subpage, I'll create about twenty new portals (19 classes, 2 indices) and the header will end up looking like this:

Portal: British Museum

(I've already created experimental templates.) So, does anyone object to me doing this? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Can You estimate how many new portals (subclass also?) are created by this process? Am I also to understand that f.ex. Italian literature portal will be a subclass to the French literature portal and not portal Literature? feydey (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Not many. A lot of the existing portals would fit directly into Class E: History of the United States. The subclasses confused me at first, but they don't seem to be intended as children of anything other than the Class. So, Subclass PQA: Italian Literature is a child of Class P: Language and Literature and not a subsubclass under Subclass PQ: French Literature. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I've counted: 16 new portals. This including two indicies, one top-level portal just listing classes, the other listing every portal broken down into class. Only the latter is really necessary, I just think two of them (high and low level) would be useful. The other 14 new portals would be: Portal:General Works, Portal:Museums, Portal:Philosophy, Psychology and Religion, Portal:World History, Portal:History of Great Britain, Portal:History of the Greco-Roman World, Portal:History of the United States (or Portal: Local History of America), Portal:Geography, Anthropology and Recreation, Portal:Political Science, Portal:Education, Portal:Language and Literature, Portal:English Language, Portal:Military Science and Portal:Wikisource (for WikiProject portals). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I am against the proposal, namely because everybody agreed a long time ago we didn't want a bunch of empty categories. A bunch of empty portals would be even worse! I am not opposed to "ground up" portals and categorizations using the Library of Congress categories as a guide. I already did it when the Category:World War I category got to be too big. But as small as the Wikisource library is, I think our readers would appreciate a large menu of related works to choose from rather than a small or nearly empty one. Wait until a category gets to be too big or at least big, then we can ceremoniously produce a portal for it. ResScholar (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't really intend to create any empty portals. Anything currently unused will stay as a redlink until such time as it is needed (if ever). (I haven't even tried to create a template, or even a list, for Class K: Law, as it's very detailed and I don't think it's much use at the moment). There will be a lot of empty space in the LLC/Portal tree but it would be pre-defined empty space of potential future portals; a guideline for the gaps to be filled in later. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
...I forgot to add: for some classes, we don't need to create any subclasses right away. Works can be listed in the class portal itself until it "overflows" into subclasses when it gets too big. For example, Music and Military Science. Some of class portals themselves probably aren't necessary yet, such as Agriculture. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I like the concept of some framework, the proposed header looks, neat and tidy, and navigable, and do so feel the need these days, so I am wondering can we be a little sneaky with these, and look to transclude subpages into a grouped page, and then break them off individually when they get too big? Means that we have the underlying framework, a rational order, and it is expandable. We can <noinclude> the headers so we just inhale the body. Also we could have some sort of parameter in the header that could identify those that have been newly introduced and may fall outside of the LOC in case someone takes it upon themselves to have initiative outside the guidance. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not too keen on strictly following the LOC classification(s) either though the need for more work in the Portal: area is hard to deny. Having "dealt" with the system a little bit in my own adventures - it is not an ideal grouping by my measure (i.e. sometimes goes against common sense).
Still, I don't see any harm with starting the twenty or so main classes just to see where it can take us. I wouldn't go too crazy with making moves into sub-classes without a further review though. George Orwell III (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally this notion of "structuring" is what categorisation was invented for. I'm opposed to using headers to duplicate category functionality. And I'm opposed to adopting a fixed classification when we can just let our category tree evolve according to need. Hesperian 11:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

First, the categorisation scheme currently in place isn't exactly the easiest to navigate... or the most user friendly for that matter - how about enabling the page/sub-folder counts, expanding folder trees and similar tweaks that our sister sites already seem to have in place as their default?
Second, as far as I can tell the Portal namespace is more about grouping categories than defining what is in them. I'm in agreement that the duplication of functions should be avoided but I'd rather not have a phone-book of categories listed at the bottom of article pages when a Portal can organize related works far better at the same time. George Orwell III (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I just like organising things. However, perhaps calling it a navigation aid would be better. Currently, there is no way to get around the Portal: space easily. There aren't that many portals right now, so it's less of a problem, but that will change. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought the primary need concerning Portals was to first establish the handful that could clear out the hundreds if not thousands of over-used organizations and institutions cited within the Author: namespace (as it is meant for individuals) and then worry about the best way to map them into some meaningful structure. I could be wrong about this though. George Orwell III (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I see it as tidying up the ramshackle Wikisource: namespace, and giving it a more navigable logical structure; a place to undertake resource and information building for a subject matter (person (non-author), place, organisation); and finally a place to align portals between sister sites.

Some may not want it overly formalised, and while that is okay for their needs where they work within a tighter zone of interest, some of us are more nomadic and eclectic in our work, and would like some assistance. I, personally, would like to quickly tap into an existing framework, one where I can more readily identify where I can drop a listing to a work, rather than to fuddle around working out where it belongs. If it gets to hard to work out where in the Portal space to put something, then it just won't happen. If it is too hard to work out what a parent structure is for Portal page, it won't happen, or it will sit somewhere weird, and that is less than helpful. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm in favour of structuring, not yet in favour of this proposal. A portal, in library terms, mixes features of a display of books and a card index. A hierarchical structure, analogous to a category system, seems less inviting than an invitation to stroll around the library until you find an area of interest. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that can really be replicated with any structure and/or navigation device. Perhaps adding Random Portal to the bar on the left will accomplish something similar; or Portal: Index if browsing a categorised list would be useful. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it help if I made sure it was easy to undo or amend? I can keep the additional navigation portals in a separate category and maintain a list of all changes (and how to undo them). The templates are all in one category anyway, so they can easily be found and deleted if necessary. Maybe after a trial period this, and entire the Portal: space, can be review (30 days? Three months? Six?). It is a wiki after all, changes are easy to make. At the moment there are just over 100 portals, with potential imports of almost 200 portals from Category:Wikisource index pages and thirty from Category:Non-author author pages, plus anything not correctly categorised (ie. Author:NASA) and any new portals that may be created. It's going to get a little confused if nothing is done. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we pick a topic area/branch and see how it works in that branch? At the moment we have nothing helpful or useful, and so far all I can see no better solution. As these Portals are intended to be more than a simple listing, which is how I see our categories, our intent is that they will be thoughtful constructs where research is undertaken. To that end, something like Wikisource:Obituaries may not be useful and may be something that is left to Category:Obituaries or maybe that could be something more that we could build constructs like Obituaries in 1924. I would feel comfortable with something being tried, rather than continuing to ignore it. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd be more than OK with offering up Portal:Government of the United States for any such effort. It's just a shell of tabs and underlying frame-work with handful of Wikisources and related categories ported over in the short time it has existed. I don't believe anybody has become overly attached to what little has been added since either. I also believe experimenting with it could eventually go a long way in finally pruning such bloated non-authors as Portal:United States Congress, as well as a good share of similar entities currently residing in Category:Non-author author pages, from the Author: namespace proper. George Orwell III (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Double pages in DjVu file page[edit]

See f.ex. Page:A short guide to Syria (1943).djvu/10 - any suggestions how to handle this? Looking through archives I only found this (not really for djvu files). feydey (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Treat it as two columns would be the answer, but there is version with a single page layout: go to AShortGuideToSyria_412/ (note name is different to … "AShortGuideToSyria"), the first link "AShortGuideToSyria_412.djvu", and upload over the other version at Commons. cygnis insignis 20:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
As I see the link is to a lower res. version with double pages still... feydey (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It displayed correctly in the online viewer, apologies for the false lead. Adopt the first suggestion: Put both pages in the textbox, I'll demonstrate what I mean. cygnis insignis 21:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
You are right, the layout is secondary here i.e. page numbering. feydey (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Posting this again as the first time was deleted with no answer - How do you put together sections from an Index page?[edit]

Posted previously but it was removed with no answer.[3] and the question deleted with no explanation by User:Cygnis insignis who removed it. I humbly request that he refrain from such behavior in the future. Another editor (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In the Index for a book, it seems like neither the djvu numbers nor the page numbers are relevant in determining the beginning and end of a particular section (for the purposed of putting together a section. How do you determine where a particular section begins and ends so as to make a section? I have been using trial and error scrolling through the whole Index and it is extremely frustrating and time consuming! Thanks, Another editor (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The removal was here: Undo revision 2057079 by Another editor (talk) answered elsewhere. The answer was given here, User_talk:Billinghurst#How_do_you_put_sections_together.3F, and noted at User_talk:Cygnis_insignis#Question_that_I_can_get_no_answer_to. cygnis insignis 21:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not satisfied with doing proofreading and nothing else. It is boring. If the more technical explanations cannot be explained to be, then I fear I am not long for Wikisource. It seems that this site is only for the technically oriented. Further, removing a questions here is really awful, as I waited and waited for an answer, until I realized that the question had been summarily removed. A bad experience. Another editor (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
(My apologies if I dropped a ball. Lots of things going on.) Your question can be answered in a number of ways, as the word "section" has a specific meaning. Obviously it is a hole in our information so why don't we take the question to User talk:billinghurst/Help:Presenting a work and step through the parts. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Have we pointed you to either of these links previously? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Another editor, I'm not sure I have understood your question; do you mean a section of a book, or a section of a page? --Zyephyrus (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I mean a section (otherwise known as a chapter) of a book. Neither the djvu numbers or the book page number are relevant. It seems that the only way to discover the right pages are to scroll through the whole index. Another editor (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The answer is the same as it would be if you were using a physical book. You look in the table of contents if it has one; else you flip through the pages manually. Hesperian 00:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
But it is not the same as a book. The book index leads to the correct page; the table of contents on wiki does not, but rather leads to an irrelevant page for the purposes of putting together a section. Another editor (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
If the page numbers on the Index: page are not aligned with the actual page numbers in the book, then that can, and should, be fixed. To see how, just view the source of any of the many index pages where this has been done; for example Index:Makers of British botany.djvu. Hesperian 13:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Yep, there is an offset. If the Index: page has been numbered to align, then hover the corrected book page number, to see the underlying djvu page number. It is one of the reasons why we do the work that we do on the index page. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I realize that Wikisource is for the technically sophisticated and editors like me are lost with no means of learning. The explanations are either ridiculous simplistic or so far over my head that I will never figure it out. The directions for fixing the Index pages by "offset" is Greek to me and of no help whatsoever. Some where billinghurst said that Wikisource welcomed input from newbies so as to make Wikisource for accessible, but I see no efforts in this direction. All explanations assume a technical background, which pretty much leaves me out. I humbly ask that you take editors like me into account. Another editor (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, our help files are pretty awful. Maybe you could fix them later, since it bothers you so much. Meanwhile, most of our new editors learn by asking lots of questions, without whining, and then really exploring the answers they receive. You ought to try that some time. Hesperian 23:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent for space)There isn't complexity, I think that you possibly looking to hard at the matter. I am doing a repair job at Index:Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu and at this stage there is no page numbering through <pagelist>, so there is no attempt to consider the numbers as they would have appeared in the book, so they are being ignored.

Look at Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu/13 and you will see two biographies, one complete, and one that goes to the next page. On that page, we wrap the two biographies in their own section markers, so we can separate the two biographies.
The DNB project prescribes that the article name for the first will be Bottomley, Joseph (DNB00) and you will see that <pages index="Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu" from=13 to=13 fromsection="Bottomley, Joseph" tosection="Bottomley, Joseph"/> identifies the page and the section. That simple. The next biography Bouch, Thomas (DNB00) is spread over two pages <pages index="Dictionary of National Biography volume 06.djvu" from=13 to=14 fromsection="Bouch, Thomas" tosection="Bouch, Thomas"/> so the page spread changes, and the section names change. From the Pages, I can see the text that I want to transclude, so the input of data into <pages> is what I want to grab. Note that on the transcluded pages the raw page numbers are showing.

Later I will populate <pagelist> on the Index: page and that will display book's page numbers, rather than the raw numbers. The OFFSET is just my use of English to be the difference between the two numbers 13 (raw) -> 1 (labelled). — billinghurst sDrewth 16:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I appreciate all your efforts and your welcoming attitude! Another editor (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Why am I logged out 10 or 20 times a day while I am still editing?[edit]

This just started within in the last few days and it is very annoying. Is there anything I can do to stop it. Thanks in advance.! Another editor (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Not happening to me, nor seeing other reports. Sounds like an issue where cookies are not being accepted. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
But this just started happening a few days ago, after two months of no problems! Another editor (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I am still having problems with being logged out suddenly. Sometimes in the middle of proofing an article, so that I have to log in again and redo all my work. This is not a cookie problem. In my cookies I can see my login name and password. Also, this does not happen with other names and passwords. Just this one on Wikisource. Another editor (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Asking for musical note editing advice[edit]

I have 11 pages of musical notes STARTING HERE to proofread and my attempt to clean up a single row of notes and create a .jpg file was less than acceptable (the quality is still very poor). I was wondering if there is an editor/tool with which I can cleanly re-type and insert, or make an image file? Thanks in advance. - Ineuw (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk to Angelprincess72 (talkcontribs), that is one of her specialty areas. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Billinghurst, thanks again for the help. - Ineuw (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Found a Public Domain Punjabi Encyclopedia online, need help[edit]

I found Mahan Kosh a Punjabi language encyclopedia that is in the public domain. I found the PDF here. It actually looks like a bit of a dictionary as well but I can't translate it to be sure. Can someone incorporate this into wikisource or into the Panjabi Wikipedia? Thanks--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I will wave this under the face of Mattwj2002 (talkcontribs) as it will need to be converted to PDF and then loaded to Commons (presuming that it meets the licence requirements). Then it will be available at all the places that may wish to use it. That said, unless it is in English, it may not belong here, and probably should be something that gets set up at Multilingual Wikisourcebillinghurst sDrewth 00:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I cant see the PDF as I am on a very slow dialup this week, but it is very likely that it is in the PD, due to being PD in India before 1996. A bit more research is required tho. user:Yann would be the best person to ask. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Schindler's List[edit]

Should Schindler's list (Schindlerjuden) be transcribed to Wikisource? --Gavin.collins (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It'd go to the German Wikisource, wouldn't it?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It's quite intelligible, and even if it weren't we could footnote the very limited amount of actual German. But surely it's in copyright?--Longfellow (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
How does it have artistic merit? I would have thought that it would be {{PD-ineligible}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Artistic merit is not the standard; it's the spark of creativity. It's not strong, but my German is basically non-existent, but the choice of names and descriptors could reach the very low threshold needed to be copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
In answer to Longfellow, I think Yad Vashem does own the copyright of the image but not the document itself as billinghurst suggests. The conditons of use policy displayed on Yad Vashem's website suggests that we have to provide attribution for the source of the document as being the one held by them (there may be other versions, but I am not clear on this point), but I expect that is it is Wikisource policy to do that anyway when we cite our source. --Gavin.collins (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Niketas Choniates "Historia"[edit]

I need help with the error that this doesn't have a header. Can someone step in and fix up the header thingie which I don't understand. Niketas Choniates. I'm also not quite sure about how to create an Author page, versus how to create a Book page. And not sure how to create an Images page, a Greek page, a Latin page and then an English page. What I'm proposing is that we make an Image of the first page, then type out the Greek, type out the Latin and do an English translation. Is all of that within scope and how to get it rolling?Wjhonson (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Basic header is Template:Header, to fill in. That's several more questions. It would be Author:Niketas Choniates. Just look at a typical Author page, such as Author:James Ussher, copy across the template and fill in as much as you can. The rest requires more explanation. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Default ON for gadget for header and author templates[edit]

Looking at where we are in our growth, and how we operate in the Main and Author namespace, I am wondering whether we should now be in the situation to have the gadget that sets the relevant header templates set to be ON as the default, at least for the top level. As the only variations that we seem to be allowing are the use of headers like {{DNB00}}, {{disambiguation}}, etc. which are based on {{header}}, it seems to me to make sense to move this way.

Gadget in Special:Preferences
  • Preload useful templates such as header, textinfo and author in respective namespaces.

billinghurst sDrewth 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 16:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Question on linking to translations[edit]

Is there a convention on Wikisource about which version of a translation to link to from inside a document? I'm thinking specifically about a case where there's a WikiSource English translation of a text that includes a quote from a different (foreign language) text, and it would be helpful to provide a link so readers can see the full context in that second text. Is there a bias toward other English translations that are hosted on WS versus English translations elsewhere on the internet? A bias specifically toward WS translations? Are there any rules or conventions governing this? --Sowasjc (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If we have more than one translation for a work, then we would have a special disambiguation page using {{translations}} from which the cross-linking would take place. About the only exception that I could see to that would be if the same person did the translations to different languages, in which case we directly align. If you are talking about a link of a snippet, then that would be a direct link, using a link [[:fr:...]], and I have usually seen that done to the title/author follow the quoted text. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to validate Page:Horses and roads.djvu/38 but that option was not available to me, altho it had been proofed by another editor[edit]

What is the reason for this? Is there something I don’t know about the process? Another editor (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is because I accidently checked "proofed" when I meant "validate", as it had already been proofed. I was unable to undo my mistake. Another editor (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Correct. When you saved your most recent change, you clicked the "proofread" button, even though it was already clicked. This changed the page to indicate that you were the person who proofread it, making you unable to validate it. I did the same thing just now, marking the page as proofed by me. Thus, you can now validate it.
To undo this without the intervention of another user, you would need to revert to the previous version of the page (save an old version as the current version), and then re-validate. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 16:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I tried exactly that and got a message that it was forbidden to do that. Another editor (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the page! Another editor (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional amendments to the United States Constitution[edit]

This article has a typo in the text of Amendment XI ("commence" should read "commenced"), but it's edit-locked. Can someone other than me make the change? Thanks!Jbening (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out; I've made the change. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 20:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Dot leaders in tables?[edit]

Do we have a template, or a method, to place dot leaders in tables like SHOWN HERE? - Ineuw (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've needed something like that for quite some time now too. The closest thing I had found on WS was {{Dotted TOC page listing}}. It might work for you with a bit of editing since your example is nice & short. It's a waste of time if the text is long enough to wrap (I gave up trying to tweak it at that point). It sure would be nice to have though. George Orwell III (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I saw a centred table of data, it will do :P I once fancied the dot leader could be usefully transcribed, but it is a borderline issue - puns intended - getting this stuff proofread is a greater concern. cygnis insignis 06:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
check out the table template used here : fr:Page:Rabelais marty-laveaux 01.djvu/405 ThomasV (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
You can also try a blank cell in the table with
style="border-bottom:1px black dotted;"
As the sounds, it creates a dotted border along the bottom of the cell; which, if placed between the two cells with information, should look like a dotted line from one to the other. I've done this at the bottom of this page: Page:Weird Tales volume 36 number 01.djvu/5 - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
That is essentially what {{Dotted TOC page listing}} does but with a tweaked line-height & padding so that the text and dots are on the same plane. Should look something like...
Entry Text 
 Page Num
George Orwell III (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks to all for the help. - Ineuw (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It is always stuff that I haven't bothered reproducing as it all looks make believe and makes the text more complex to code without seeming benefit. I put it down to an old formatting style, and not necessarily something prescribed by the author. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't log out because if I do, my talk page, user page and contributions disappear and become redlinks![edit]

See User:Mattisse vs. User:Mattisse. What am I not understanding? Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The first link is the English Wikisource, located at The second link is the multi-lingual Wikisource, located at, without the en in front. Hesperian 13:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! But why did my computer change from one to the other, when I didn’t even know the second one existed. I noticed it this morning when I went to "Recent changes" (having not logged out the night before) and found that there were hardly any Recent changes. Then I noticed my name etc. were redlinked. Mattisse (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
<shrug> Hesperian 13:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Did you drop over to oldwikisource to look at ProofreadPage stuff, as that is where it is centrally housed? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
No. I guess it is just one of those inexplicable things about Wikisource, like my page logging out several times a day, even in the middle of editing a page, so that I have to log in again to reconstruct and continue the edit. (I didn’t even know those other Wikisource sites existed. And I have a unified global log in, which usually means I don’t have to log in to other wiki sites manually.) This is all new behavior on the part of my computer on Wikisource (within the last week or so) , so I was thinking something on Wikisource had changed. But it seems to be "one of those things" with no explanation. I have no trouble on other sites, including other wiki sites. Some web sites I have been logged on for years with no log outs occurring. And this never occurs on the Commons, for example, or on Wikipedia. Mattisse (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

kirk munroe[edit]

I want to add in Kirk Munroe's Wakulla. I am new, but can someone explain to me if I can include it and, if so, how? -- Tannertsf (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find a page scan of the origninal, but Project Gutenberg is probably the source of other versions on the web. You want to copy the text and formatting over here, retaining the centred sub-headings and italic text. Have a go and someone will help. cygnis insignis 15:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Boston Evening Transcript[edit]

For the Boston Evening Transcript, I noticed that there was a poem located at that page. To date there has only been one other item from that paper added to this site as a subpage.[4] Since I assume the items appearing in that publication would be entered as subpages, does that poem need to be moved so that the page can be used as the top level entry point for the publication? Or do you think it should be organized in some other manner? —Mike 05:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is a poem of that name, and a newspaper of that name, then the page becomes disambiguation page that points to the relevant components. With regard to newspapers, the recent style has been to add articles as subpages, and then depending on how many articles we are likely to have there are a variety of sub-levels (between one to three). — billinghurst sDrewth 12:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)