Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2014-05

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 May 2014, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Announcements[edit]

Proposals[edit]

Featured authors[edit]

The Wikisource:Community collaboration (previously Wikisource:Collaboration of the Week) started by Sherurcij appears to be dead since they retired 4 years ago. Given that most editors here at Wikisource are busy with their own projects and there already is Wikisource:Proofread of the Month to propose and complete specific works by any given author, I believe it is unlikely that there are sufficient editors here to proofread/transcribe all works of any prolific author. I instead propose that we start a new "Featured authors" initiative.

  • Contrary to the previous approach there would be no "collaboration", editors will nominate an author for "featured" status, after say, 50% or more works of that author is proofread.
  • Like the "Featured texts" process the author nominated and thereafter selected will be linked from the main page.

This can be synchronised with the featured list process on Wikipedia and can help draw traffic to this site. I am primarily inspired by the efforts of Hesperian regarding Henry James. Solomon7968 (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea. Let's build a backlog of qualified candidates for review: Author:Plato, Author:Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Author:Rabindranath Tagore, Author:Samuel Langhorne Clemens, Author:James Joyce - DutchTreat (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If there isn't going to be any collaboration, then the page should be moved to a new title. Any suggestions? —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 12:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I have slightly modified my comment now to give some context. The community collaboration was previously "Collaboration of the Week", with a notable/prolific author chosen every week to improve the works of that author. Now take the case of Henry James. The first major collection of his work was published in 35 volumes. 35, that's a lot!!!! Do folks here seriously believe that there are that many editors here to proofread 35 volumes in a week? The answer is no. But I suspect that by starting this "Featured authors" initiative a lot of editors of Wikipedia can be drawn to this site. Now why? The boost to quality improvement in articles on Wikipedia comes from the desire to get an article featured on the front page, there it gets a lot of page views and recognition etc. Now here on Wikisource an author will stay up on the front page for 30 days (i.e. the time span of "Featured texts" or 30 times that of Wikipedia). Solomon7968 (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmmhrmhm. So, in effect, the same process as CotW is used for notable authors with more than 50% of their works transcribed, but with the time period extended to a month. Is that it? I think this proposal should be taken to the Scriptorium for more comment... hey, wait a bit, this is the Scriptorium! Anyway, joking apart, I still feel that the project page should be moved (and considerably renovated) if the project is to be known henceforth as Featured Author and not Community Collaboration (it's the third time it's being moved...) And oh, better start creating a backlog of authors right now, as DutchTreat has suggested. Start on Wikisource talk:Community collaboration for the time being. And I think I'd better bring my Poem of the Day proposal as well to the S'm now... —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 17:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
We (I) changed the COTW to Community collaboration as it wasn't happening weekly, if at all. I like the idea of an extra set of features and dynamic content, though I don't think that a wholesale replacement from one fixed set to another is perfect. Though I see that a Featured author or Featured subject component is something that can fit within Community collaboration as while we focus on an author or subject, look to fit works together, we can also look to encourage users to contribute. My reasoning is that Featured sections will take time to build, and if there is a wider options available, then they can be compiled over time. We still want to encourage participation, and not just view. They can also be planned as we do for PotM. Keeping flexibility still allows 12 months of featured authors, but it also allows change and interest. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Question Question: Is this a featured content item, spotlighting high-quality material on the project (like the Featured Text, Wikipedia's Featured Article, Commons' Featured Picture/Media, etc), or is it a collaboration item, listing things in need of improvement or group-work (like the current Community Collaboration, Proofread of the Month etc)? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
My initial proposal was about featured content item i.e. spotlighting high-quality material (here the time span will be 30 days by default [i.e. the time span of "Featured texts"] or 30 times that of Wikipedia's Featured Article) and try to draw more volunteers here by synchronising it with the featured list process on Wikipedia (see for example the recognized content listings of WikiProject Bibliographies; such FLs of public domain authors are especially relevant here). Solomon7968 (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Support - This is a nice way to bring attention to author portals. As long as we keep overhead low for reviewing candidates, we should have plenty of authors in backlog that could qualify. DutchTreat (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support oh yes. —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 11:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, wonderful idea. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Know I'm late to the party, but I support this idea. I've always wanted to do this myself, but balked at the sheer amount of work involved.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Poem of the Day[edit]

As discussed above in #Main Page improvements, it has been proposed that a new Poem of the Day feature be introduced on the Main Page [originally suggested to occupy the extra space on Main Page/sandbox, I believe this has since been fixed]. We have plenty of poems on Wikisource, of which not many are featured. As User:Beeswaxcandle has said, poems from A Treasury of War Poetry can be featured this year to commemmorate WWI. —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 17:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If it comes in handy, I have begun a chronological list of poems from TWP with poems that lend themselves to such a list. You can find the [incomplete as of this post] list in my sandbox. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure! Let's fill up the Main Page with two one-sixth-sized sections devoted to the single academic field of literature. And debut them at the same time. Why the hell not? ResScholar (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: We would need 364 poems. I'm not sure we can manage that if the criteria become too strict. (It might be a push anyway). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it looks like many editors here focus on poetry anyway, so it shouldn't be too difficult. And if there aren't enough for a daily selection, then we can change it to a weekly feature. 52 poems aren't too many--many poetry anthologies contain around that many poems, if not more. —Clockery Fairfeld [t] 13:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a proposal, it's a provocation. Why not a Popular Science or physics article of the day? Or a social science or political article of the day? Or a court decision of the day? Or a Dictionary of National Biography or history entry of the day? Or an encylopedia entry of the day? You certainly think highly of literature. But why should everyone else be pressured to think of it as highly as you? ResScholar (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be placed at Portal:Poetry? There is a link to the portal already under "Highlights" on the WS Main page. I don't think that Portal has been updated in a while (2012, actually)...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: well not many poem articles in w:Category:Poems. might require some curation. are anonymous poems notable? just cause i haven’t written the bio, doesn’t mean they’re not notable. need to make more source links to articles like w:The New Colossus. now that user:AWadewit is gone, we have fewer good article editors for old literature. the gall of putting literature on main page. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 03:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible elements to include[edit]

  • Picture (either that of the poet or an illustration from the poem/book itself)
  • Short description (might include name, poet's name, date, collection name, background info, etc.)
  • Excerpt
  • Audio
  • add next

User:Clockery/Sandbox1 is a draft of the Main Page template. Feel free to modify.

Criteria for a poem to be featured[edit]

  • must be scan-backed
  • the scan should be a significant edition e.g. first edition.
  • must be validated
  • the poem itself must be notable, and preferably downright famous
    • What does "notable" mean in this context? —Clockery Fairfeld [t] 13:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
      • If it has it's own article on Wikipedia it is notable. If it is mentioned in an article on Wikipedia, it is probably notable. If the author does not have a article on Wikipedia, none of their works are notable. Some grey area left in the middle. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • add next

BOT approval requests[edit]

Help[edit]

Other discussions[edit]

Authority Control, VIAF, and pseudonyms[edit]

Hi folks. I just ran across a problem while working on cleaning up VIAF mismatches. Author:Isaac Asimov (VIAF) used the pseudonym Paul French (VIAF) for some of his works. VIAF lists this pseudonym record as a "related name" to the main name record (the pseudonym has its own ISNI number) -- but it's not clear that this is universally the way that VIAF and ISNI handle pseudonyms (see slides 16 & 17). My question is this: Should I put an additional authority control template on the Author:Isaac Asimov page with the pseudonym's VIAF number? Or should these instead be two separate pages? Or some third option? Thanks in advance! Tertiaryresources (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the ISNI api would allow the two clusters to be merged, thatwould be checked by the ISNI QT, and propogated back to VIAF? Rich Farmbrough, 18:23 29 March 2014 (GMT)
At the moment it is not clear whether VIAF/ISNI plan to merge authors' names with their pseudonyms into a single authority record. In the meantime, how should we handle them here in Wikisource? Have one page with two authority control templates OR have two separate pages (each with their own authority control template) that then cross-link to each other? Tertiaryresources (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Ignore the VIAF data for the pseudonym. How is it needed? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I was asking in an attempt to understand how to handle a complex situation like this. I'll do as you suggest and ignore these situations and just let someone else deal with it. There's plenty of other stuff to do. Tertiaryresources (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Way-forward on Wikidata and Authority control[edit]

Hi. I feel a bit lost on what we want to do as next step with WD and VIAF. I have the feeling that there are different schools. Another option is that I am the one completely out of synch. All I want is to clarify the status, so I will not put effort into something that can be thrown away any minute from now.

1. Does it still make sense to add VIAF data locally here?

  • yes, iff a page is not yet linked to Wikidata ....?
  • no ...
  • yes, always ...
  • ...

2. Is it time to remove local VIAF data and rely on WD and {{authority control}}?

  • yes, iff ...
  • yes, but only after ensuring WD data is same as local data ...
  • yes, but only after ensuring WS is listed as source in WD ...
  • no, not yet ...
  • ...

3. Are there other runs of bots planned in WD to continuously update WD with new info in WS?

  • if so, what they will look for ...? (if someone from WD is listening, I am available so support here, not just putting the burden on you.)

And similar others.--Mpaa (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts:
1. I don't think it hurts to have authority control data here but it should all go to Wikidata where possible. Obviously, pages not yet connected to Wikidata should keep their data until there is somewhere to put it. I have not found a VIAF importer gadget on Wikidata yet, so I still sometimes find it easier to import here and then copy across; I probably shouldn't do this, however.
2. I think we are keeping the VIAF number itself locally. We should probably aim to delete local copies of the rest eventually. As with no. 1, I don't think duplication of data hurts, so there is no immediate deadline and we would want to be sure the Wikidata data matched ours (or better) first. In my opinion, eventually we should be relying on Wikidata for all except VIAF itself.
3. There are no bot runs planned that I know of. I don't really know how Wikidata bots work in this regard. Similarly, I don't know of any plans to harvest our VIAF data. Either would be nice. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
First, I think it's important to recognize that WikiData and VIAF are both relatively new tools, and as such there is a lot of messy data in both of them (duplicate records, incorrect data, etc.). However, I think that's a good thing -- although there is a lot of work to do to clean up all these authority records, the fact that all this data is being centralized (instead of being spread across Wikimedia projects / individual nations' catalogs) is going to make a HUGE positive impact in the long run. But at the moment, I'm trying not to expect too much from either tool too early. Now, having said that, Mpaa is right that we need to be thinking about long-term workflows and their impact. So here are my thoughts:
1. Yes, we should add VIAF data to author pages via the authority control template. However, I agree with AdamBMorgan that we should make pointing to Wikidata the highest priority. Making that connection will allow for later bots to do authority control cleanup as VIAF records are merged/fixed. As an example, I've already found several instances where a VIAF number in a Wikisource page is out of date (pointing to a VIAF record that has been merged into another VIAF record with a different number). When I find these, I manually correct the VIAF number in Wikisource, but I think bots can do this later as things are cleaned up over time.
Regarding out-of-date VIAFs, I am planning to clean them up with a bot (I need to find some time). Data can be found on VIAF Dataset page, redirections within the VIAF dataset.--Mpaa (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
2. I think it's too early to remove VIAF records from Wikisource pages. In my vision of things, the VIAF number will always be visible on Wikisource pages, but those numbers will be automatically updated by bots as corrections are made on VIAF's site. But that would consist of VIAF sending updates to Wikidata, and Wikisource would then display the updated Wikidata information (like an infobox).
3. I have no idea what bots are planned, but I envision Wikisource author pages automatically displaying an infobox with whatever relevant information is in Wikidata. I think it would be great for Wikidata to start by harvesting our author metadata (firstname, lastname, birthyear, deathyear, etc.) so that it can be shared amongst sister Wikimedia projects. Eventually the data will be edited only on Wikidata and reflected amongst all the projects the moment that the change is made. That's how I picture it in my head, anyway. I look forward to others' responses! Tertiaryresources (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Let me preface what follows by first saying I'm largely playing catch up with all this myself & that I'm generally in agreement with what has been said so far. I would like to revist some points, however....
1. The current AuthControl template & Module we use is -a copy of the Commons version that was-a copy based on the Wikipedia version. The categorization originally intiated by the Template part, originally, tracked No VIAF on Wikidata & VIAF mismatch on Wikidata returns. Based on the latter & some common sense, I added a third Cat that first checked to see if we even had a VIAF (No VIAF on Wikisource) string that could be "pinged" to accomplish the same - otherwise, any polling asked of us would be inaccurate and or incomplete. So it is not I who made tracking these nuances key - they did. I just followed in their footsteps.

In short, the ~600 or so No VIAF on wikisource hits must be satisfied locally by manually adding at least the VIAF string here on WS. I believe this is priority 1.

2. Removal is premature. Based on the original 2 (now 3) categories generated by the authority control Template, VIAF (at the least) must be present to properly bring the no VIAF present cats down to zero both on Wikidata & on Wikisource. Zero-ing those 2 cats out would leave both WS & WS with the task of resolving the remaining Cat, mismatched VIAFs.

Bring that last Cat down to zero resolving mismatches along with the other 2 and imho only then can we safely revisit this point and how to act on it as a permanent policy.

3. As far as I can tell, the batch of now obsolete interwiki bots that ran under the old scheme seem to be finding new life by working on one thing or the other for Wikidata - can't say if that helps or hurts our efforts here locally. Again, the point now is not so much about harvesting all our labors in compiling accurate Authority Control data pre-Phase 2 (that train has left the station) and seems now I surmise now are more about addressing and resolving issues more in the vein of the two (now three) VIAF tracking categories mentioned above. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
As a general rule I am not keen on removing author/portal AC references from Wikisource ever. However having inflamed you all with that statement I shall explain when I do consider removal acceptable… and along the way I hope make clear my personal support for the concept of WS AC entries having their very own local IDs:

You might note that the WikiData property entries all have have a "Source" and "Rank" attribute (the latter is the three little boxes icon. To the best of my knowledge "Rank" is currently now always "normal" which effectively means absolutely no quality control—from the point of view of wikidata—has been taken whatsoever.)

If enWS ever wants to be taken seriously as a source of this kind of research local records must contain some kind of locally unique ID (to permit those Source attributes to back-link to)—and retain locally the information which gives the WD property its "legitimacy." If everybody runs around merrily deleting information on the basis it is "now in WD" then where has that chain of factual establishment gone?

By all means delete local references you are confident were researched elsewhere (by the way, how do you know that?) but otherwise there is a severe risk of simply flushing the fruits of sound effort away pointlessly.

A point I feel is being missed in all this controversy over authority controls is that the Author: record is likely to become WikiSource's "public interface" and for that an externally-usable record ID will be essential to index (non-AC as well) things like works published from WikiSource, and area where surely we are the definitive record-keepers?

I am painfully aware I have not expressed this nearly as well as I wanted to, and I hope under the ridicule I fear this comment may generate will be able to make myself clearer. AuFCL (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

As a comment about source and rank with regard to authority identifiers. They are completely irrelevant! The identifier is a link to a evident self-reference source (see d:Help:Sources). How does one rank a reference to a primary source? You simply don't (see d:Help:Ranking) The closest you could say is that VIAF is the source for the other data of LCCN/NLA/etc. but do we really want to go there when the data provided links back to the respective identifier sources. In short they are a distraction to the discussion here.— billinghurst sDrewth 11:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Frankly, I don't care about this whole issue enough to fight with you. I tried to raise what I perceive might be a relevant point in good faith and can see a waste of time and effort as a result. Until this matter is home and hosed I shall refrain from wasting any effort whatsoever with any kind of author references. I simply do not know what any of you guys want or expect any more. AuFCL (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is ZERO need to maintain any authority control data at this site, where and when it can be pulled from Wikidata. Authority control data at WD can be and will be tested against authority database, so for us to maintain static and unqueryable data is simply makes no sense. The contacts at VIAF are more involved with WD than we will ever be, and you just need to watch that space. There will be data interchange, data, fixes, etc. able to be undertaken that we will only dream will happen here, more bot operators, and more connectivity and especially the schema design to make it happen easily. If there is no WD data, then go and add it.

So if the WD data exists, just add the template. If the WD does not exist, then please add it, and just add the template. If no WD and no desire to do WD, then sure add the AC template with VIAF link, and it will be removed once WD has been done. @AdamBMorgan: there is a VIAF importer at WD, look in d:user:billinghurst/common.js and it inserts more data than our tool, though the search function is a little more limited. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Cheers! I thought there should be something like that around. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I am reliably told that Module:WikidataCheck, which GO3 has already imported from enWP, will be able inform us whether data is available at WD, or not. By using that methodology, as per {{WikidataCheck}}, we should be able to identify which author pages have VIAF data, and which do not. The situation we will still face is where there is no authority data for individuals, and I have only been managing that so far with an html remark in the body, and we may wish to formalise that somehow. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
To re-cap.... The presence of a VIAF identifier was already being tracked via the {{Authority control}} template using the same premise [code] as found in the WikiDataCheck template. Recall...
... all pretty much at the same levels as when we first started; so I will make the plea again
  • For the ~2800 pages falling into one of the above please, stop removing local data for the time being; if anything - add data to maintain uniformity. It can all be removed in the future. There is no Rush here - we are already behind the 8-ball as it is.
  • applying an authority control template with no(0) parameters prevents its reuse by the VIAF gadget if and when discrepancies/inferior identifiers are found/present themselves down the road. You will need to manually remove the blank AuthCont template in these cases (please do not forget to do this when encountering a blank AuthCont template that needs the gadget; duplicates cause false positives all around).

    The alternative is to apply the AuthCont template with at least one parameter w/identifier in place as a best practice. This will allow for any future manipulation by the gadget if need be.

  • If there is a connection established with WD, feel free to update, this, that or the other thing @ WD. This still does not warrant the removal of local data afterwards. In fact, IMHO removal shouldn't take place until a WikiDataCheck for each [core] identifier we host locally is vetted first.
Then there is the matter of the ~4,000 pages not connecting to Wikidata at all regardless of AuthControl template being present in each or not and/or with or without the VIAF parameter present. See the Maintenance of the Month for that tracking in detail. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Regarding the 4000 pages, it is worthwhile to continue to add VIAF data locally. VIAF data can be used as a search key in WD. If in WD there is (will be) an item with P214=VIAFnnnnn, a bot can easily search for it and connect the two. Once the picture is clear and stable, removing info from {{Authority control}} (checking connection to WD and same VIAF value on WS and WD) is easy to automate as well.--Mpaa (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
We can probably just request a bot run on Wikidata to harvest all of our authority control data (but not delete it). I'm not sure, however, if we should wait for the last quarter of the authorspace to be connected (it will probably be a few months yet) or go ahead with that now. After that, we can sort out our side of the data ourselves. As far as I was aware, this ultimately means just keeping the VIAF number itself and no others, but I am not opposed to keeping everything; it's, at worst, inefficient but won't actually damage anything. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm of like mind - asking for a bot importation of what we have AC-wise seems like the obvious next step. If I can get some help drawing down the ~444 left in Category:VIAF not on Wikisource‎, that should result in the true fill out of Category:Pages with authority control data well enough to then produce a dynamic list cross-referencing Category:Author pages connected to Wikidata with it for a reliable final list of Author: pages targeting the bot import of what we currently have manually stored in our {{Authority control}} template. That is somewhere in the ballpark of 12,500 pages - some of which seems to have our AC/VIAF data imported correctly already.

When that runs it's course, we'll have a far more accurate count in the other 2 CATs (VIAF not on WD and VIAF mismatch) than we have now. Concerning these 2 conditions, I've found the causes behind can be numerous in nature but are mostly due to poor differentiation between similar names between domains. For example... our Author:Edward Livingston Wilson was "imported" incorrectly to Edward L. Wilson at first - I assume because we still pointed to the Wikipedia article of the same middle-initial title in plain-sister even after name-expansion had taken place here. Our AuthControl data was manually input and in place prior to importation - it associated the page with the right WD entry, Edward Livingston Wilson. The current condition is VIAF not on WD through no fault of our own here. The only conclusion I can draw from that is importation is dependent on our Wikipedia association(s) when it should(?) be independent of others.

The point of the example is to illustrate the need to resolve our maintenance CATs as soon as possible or the vetting of data imports will only be partial at best. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Few remarks.
  • Category:VIAF not on Wikidata‎ -> this is composed by: 1) this http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/autolist.html?q=link[enwikisource]%20AND%20noclaim[214]%20AND%20claim[31%3A5]# (about 800) and all the authors on WS that have VIAF but are not connected to WD. I checked if items in the list on WD have VIAF locally here on WS but I was able to cut it down only from 900 to 800.
  • Category:VIAF different on Wikidata‎ (now 215 P) -> I removed all the mismatches due to VIAF old id, they need to be check manually at WD.
My conclusion is that the new bot run will not import a lot of new data into WD unless we connect pages first, but it is nevertheless worth to try.--Mpaa (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
OK. I'm getting lost a bit here. If your findings indicate poor return on investment regarding whittling down the 3 VIAF specific maintenance CATs, then what is the Authority Control status of the ~4000 or so non WD connected Author pages? Should we / do we need to address that here locally to maximize eventual data importation? -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-14[edit]

09:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the default site typography coming soon[edit]

This week, the typography on Wikimedia sites will be updated for all readers and editors who use the default "Vector" skin. This change will involve new serif fonts for some headings, small tweaks to body content fonts, text size, text color, and spacing between elements. The schedule is:

  • April 1st: non-Wikipedia projects will see this change live
  • April 3rd: Wikipedias will see this change live

This change is very similar to the "Typography Update" Beta Feature that has been available on Wikimedia projects since November 2013. After several rounds of testing and with feedback from the community, this Beta Feature will be disabled and successful aspects enabled in the default site appearance. Users who are logged in may still choose to use another skin, or alter their personal CSS, if they prefer a different appearance. Local common CSS styles will also apply as normal, for issues with local styles and scripts that impact all users.

For more information:

-- Steven Walling (Product Manager) on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation's User Experience Design team

Can some css expert advice on what I have to insert in my .css to have the font in the edit box in edit mode larger? When I inspect it, it is the area called TEXTAREA#wpTextbox1. I tried to look around but could not find anything related to it.--Mpaa (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Can't claim "expert" status but what about this:
#wpHeaderTextbox,
#wpTextbox1,
#wpFooterTextbox {
	font-size:120%;
}
—I am assuming you want headers and footers similarly sized as well? If not drop "#wpHeaderTextbox" and "#wpFooterTextbox" (but remember to retain the "{" as the syntax needs it!)
Adjust "120%" to factor of your choice. To resize preview area as well add
#wikiPreview,
—to the top of the list. As far as I can tell, none of this affects non-edit viewing or main space/transclusion in any fashion, but bear in mind all edits both inside and outside of Page:-space will be affected. Hope this is what you wanted. AuFCL (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Perfect. Thanks--Mpaa (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This does not work[edit]

"Alternatively randomly have a page selected that requires validation."

" 403: User account expired

The page you requested is hosted by the Toolserver user erwin85, whose account has expired. Toolserver user accounts are automatically expired if the user is inactive for over six months. To prevent stale pages remaining accessible, we automatically block requests to expired content.

If you think you are receiving this page in error, or you have a question, please contact the owner of this document: erwin85 [at] toolserver [dot] org. (Please do not contact Toolserver administrators about this problem, as we cannot fix it—only the Toolserver account owner may renew their account.)

HTTP server at toolserver.org - ts-admins [at] toolserver [dot] org " —Maury (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The Toolserver is being shut down by Wikimedia Deutschland sometime soon and many tools have been shut down and/or moved. If there is no toollabs: replacement, then whatever Toolsever link we have probably needs to be removed. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, Adam. I thought that link was a good idea. Do you want me to try to remove that Toolserver Link? —Maury (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a page for toollabs:erwin85, so he may have ported his tool across. I'm not sure which tool it is, however, so I can't check. Where is this link? (Otherwise, yes, you might as well remove the link entirely if there is no working replacement.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
@AdamBMorgan: This is the tool (the working one, anyway--the other one doesn't work). Maury, on which page does this link appear? I can't remember. Best regards,—Clockery Fairfeld [t] 17:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I found three instances of this link and changed them. If there are more, the new link is a wikilink like this: toollabs:erwin85/randomarticle.simple.php?lang=en&family=wikisource&namespaces=-1&categories=Proofread (it can be piped like a normal wikilink, so any text can be displayed). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Erwin has retired from the Wikimedia space, Magnus shifted Erwin's tools to labs, though there is no guarantee that the tools will be supported into the future. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton title discussion at Wikipedia[edit]

A proposal has been made at Wikipeda, at w:Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8, to change the title of the article, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to "Hillary Clinton". If that move succeeds (so far it looks like a substantial majority of editors support it), would we likewise move Author:Hillary Rodham Clinton to Author:Hillary Clinton? Cheers! BD2412 T 16:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. Wikisource tends to use the full name whenever possible, as a form of disambiguation as much as anything else. Judging by the various authority controls and Internet Archive, this is somewhat standard for libraries. Sister projects can move their pages around without affecting us too badly as long as Wikidata/interproject links all point in the right direction (and I expect they'll have redirects even if they don't update links). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
[MORE] Looking into it further, we should probably add a "Diane" in there too. There is no WS:COMMONNAME or WS:CONCISE; the closest case I can recall is disagreement over Author:Mark Twain vs. Author:Samuel Clemens, and that page can now be found at Author:Samuel Langhorne Clemens. As long as we have redirects it makes little practical difference. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the explanation (and for fixing the header). I see now that you also have Author:William Jefferson Clinton where Wikipedia has "Bill Clinton", and Author:George Herbert Walker Bush where Wikipedia has "George H. W. Bush". BD2412 T 18:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
good to see the reference librarians prevailing, but is Author:O. Henry an oversight? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 23:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Naughty, naughty: preying upon the academically gifted yet simultaneously stupid! AuFCL (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
There are lots of oversights, or exceptions — depending on your point of view. Author:T. S. Eliot is another case, where a move to "Thomas Stearns Eliot" was reverted and the underlying disagreement never resolved. Hesperian 00:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Help link in sidebar?[edit]

Is it just me, or does the help link in the sidebar go to mediawiki.org instead of our own Help:Contents page? — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

My fault. It should be OK now. Sorry for any trouble I may have caused. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
No worries! Thanks for fixing it. :-) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 01:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser permission[edit]

Where can I ask for AWB permission here in Wikisource? --Tito Dutta (Talk) 12:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you need to have permission on this project (I don't know of any area where that would happen). If you want to run it as a bot, with a bot flag, that needs approval in an earlier section of this page, and see Wikisource:Bots for more information. If you want to run it manually just to semi-automate your own edits, then I think you can just do so. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello AdamBMorgan, yes you are right, it seems I do not need permission to use AWB here (I did not expect it. AWB may be abused as it can make many edits quickly). I tried to test in my user talk page, But there it detected no error. I have just made a test edit. Although I told in edit summary that the "test edit" would be reverted quickly, I have not made the reversion. I think the edit was fine (an article should not be linked in the same page. AWB worked fine here). But feel free to revert the edit.
    And about my AWB need— I have been working at Wikipedia (En)’s Swami Vivekananda project for last two years. I have a website too. This website directly cites Wikisource content. I have noticed there are many errors in The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. Please see my contributions, I am trying to fix errors. But it is a tedious work. AWB may help in gather pages/fixing some errors quickly (I’ll not need to open new page in new tab, click on edit link etc). Fully automated edits will not work. I’ll need to check edits manually before saving. Plus, I am going to propose removing all special character alphabets (à to a, ń to n etc) from these few thousand pages’ Complete Works. I have noticed, these are not consistent. In some pages they have used IAST/IPA, in some pages they have used general Roman alphabets. It becomes very difficult to search or follow. I’ll propose the change first, and if it is accepted, AWB will be very helpful here.
    Plus is there any bot here that fixes paragraph justification like this? Most probably it is the result of "bad copy paste", lines are breaking "before 78 characters" like plain text email. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 00:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
    I think there was a line break removing tool for paragraphs somewhere but I can't remember where or what it was. AWB can remove line breaks, or replace them with spaces, (I believe a line break is \n) but it will affect all line breaks, including the ones you want to keep. NB: Special characters should match characters used in the original publication (I can't find a scan anywhere, so I can't tell what that was). Feel free to make the proposal though. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Index:Homer - Iliad, translation Pope, 1909.djvu[edit]

Can someone please do some assembly work on this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

ok, done, please check work. reformat titles how you want. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 01:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It does bother me a little that this is classified only as "Early modern poetry" and "18th century works". Is that our norm for translations of Classical literature? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Help request[edit]

Request for someone to take a look at the couple questions in the Help section above. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate file - Index:Ambulance 464 by Julien Bryan - What to do?[edit]

I've found 2 files of Index:Ambulance 464 by Julian Bryan - Index:Ambulance 464 by Julien Bryan.djvu and Index:Ambulance 464 by Julien Bryan.pdf the djvu file is the most advanced but the pdf appears to have pages missing from the djvu file. What should be done? --kathleen wright5 (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-15[edit]

08:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned reference[edit]

If anyone has insight as to where the reference should be placed on this page, please feel free to place it. Also, there are two characters (letters) in the reference (in the word "samrad") that I can't replicate; if someone has the ability, it would be appreciated. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I entered the two characters, by copying them from Wikipedia:Dot (diacritic), but I'm not sure where the reference is supposed to go. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
We both plagiarized Wikipedia except you beat me to it by a few seconds because I got the simultaneous editing notice.Face-smile.svg. I will move the reference to the header.— Ineuw talk 16:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both! Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been trying to solve the reference issue too but the footnote isn't very clear. It might be referring to the line 'Air—"The brink of the White Rocks."' under the title. After googling a few phrases, I came up with an Edward Bunting who included "The Brink of the White Rocks" in his 1840 book The Ancient Music of Ireland. I can't tell what herring have to do with anything, however, and Google can't match the Irish text to anything. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Public domain texts digitized by Google[edit]

Are we allowed to archive public domain texts digitized by Google? They have watermarks everywhere so I don't think we can use the scans. Does that rule them out completely? Abyssal (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

well, if you look at the current Wikisource:Proofread of the Month, i.e. Page:The_Spirit_of_the_Nation.djvu/13, you will see watermarks galore. apparently the scanners, will keep trying to get their credit. apparantly ok on Commons:Watermarks: "uploading of files with visible but relatively unobtrusive watermarks is merely discouraged, not prohibited." see also [19] for NC claims of PD works. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 21:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Books in whatever format can be avoided when a Google watermark is on pages. Watermarks can also be removed by programs. I have had and upgraded a purchased program that removes googles watermarks which is Adobe Acrobat. Mine is Adobe Acrobat XI Pro. But I believe there are free or inexpensive programs that will allow the removal of watermarks. If I found a djvu book that could not be found elsewhere and filled with google watermarks I would download the .pdf version of the book and remove all watermarks on every page and then upload the cleaned book to Internet Archives aka Archive.org so that a .djvu version would be created. I would then download that clean djvu file and use it on WS. Google, I believe, $ells the best books and we (and others as well as companies) get the watermarked versions so we cannot sell the scanned books. Amazon.com, eBay, Google, Google Play and others offer books for sale. So, in this manner when there are any expenses there are also profits to offset the expenses. Long ago I worked at a university and where I worked they had students scanning books as an "assignment" so there the student pays for the opportunity and scans books. Each book is them is printed as needed, or requested, and sold. It cost the university nothing. I am guessing now that some companies that have scanned pdfs and sell them make a deal with universities but I do not know for positive because my work was long, long ago. Still, that may still be the process or a part of the overall process. I do not think anyone selling is not making a profit and therefore keeps going. Companies are not going to work with books for free. Companies exist for profit or they would not exist. —Maury (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
meh, when we transcribe, then the machine readable comes to the fore, only see the watermark on drill down. the fees from e-readers will make money from copyrighted works not free works [20]; this is a prestige thing. ponzi schemes would make a profit, or they would not exist. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 02:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"Epigram" not accounted for in PotM TOC[edit]

There is a poem (scroll to page end) that appears in the text, but is not represented in the TOC [It would appear after "Nation's Valentine", on pg. 25; it was written by "Terræ Filius"] What to do? There are 11 other "Epigrams" in the text, which I have disambiguated in this way for Mainspace (& TOC): ex: The Spirit of the Nation/Epigram (3). If this poem were present in the text, it would be Epigram #4. Links for the remaining Epigrams in the TOC (as well as their corresponding Mainspace pages) would need to be adjusted accordingly (which I can do myself after opinions on direction). Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

One option would be to add the piece to the TOC in its proper place and wrap the title in a {{SIC}} with a "not listed in original, but appears in text". The Mainspace title could be The Spirit of the Nation/Epigram (unlisted) instead of using a numeral (which would require moving several pages and renaming)... All that would be necessary is to adjust a couple prev/next's on pages in the Main... If that sounds okay, I'll go ahead; I'll wait for either approval or another idea. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Would {{auxTOC}} work? I'm not too sure whether it can be inserted between two other entries, but it is usually used if there is no table of contents in the original work (and sometimes when the introduction, preface, &c. are not listed). —Clockery Fairfeld [t] 06:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that might look a little "bulky"... If something could be inserted that would be inline with the rest of the TOC text (listing title, author, page no., etc.), without bringing too much attention to the fact that it is not in the original but without making it an eyesore. That's why I was thinking of using {{SIC}} with a "variable". But feel free to test something out if you're technically savvy! I may change my mind! Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Well then, I think your suggestion is better--but maybe {{tooltip}} instead of {{SIC}} might be better, since (a) SIC is used to mark typos and such errors in printed text (not text which was never printed...), and (b) you can give your own notes in {{tooltip}} (in {{SIC}}, a preceding [sic] is added). Feel free to do whatever you think is best. —Clockery Fairfeld [t] 17:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll give it a try in a little bit. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done using {{tooltip}}, unless there are objections. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks nice, not too obtrusive. :-) —Clockery Fairfeld [t] 03:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

PDF page cropping template crops only first page, even though another page is specified[edit]

Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf
Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly

In the above page cropping as per Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2010-04#PDF page cropping template, I found that cropping is defaulting to first page, even though another page is specified. In the given link, it worked for Magnus's sample pdf of 4 pages. Can Magnus Manske or any others who have used this help? --Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The page parameter needs to begin with a capital "P" it seems. Page 73 should come up now that I switched |page= to |Page= . -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • George Orwell III, Thanks for your help.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • George Orwell III, The location parameter does not work. It seems to be left always, even if others are specified. For example right was used in the above example. Can you confirm? Thanks. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    Despite the name and template description, all Location=right actually does is set the CSS class of the displayed block to "right"…which sadly is not defined by default. I know this is not what you really want, but say setting Location=floatright actually does something, as that just happens to be a predefined class. Result below (in fact →):
Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf
Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly
Better minds (than my own) may wish to elaborate? AuFCL (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • AuFCL, Thanks for your tip. Is there any thing else for "Center"? --Arjunaraoc (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Regrettably nothing particularly springs to mind. My point was that the template (as written) assumes a particular set of CSS classes which (if ever were present) certainly don't appear to be so any more. This is why I was hoping somebody might jump in and point out a nice canonic list which I seem to have overlooked (hint still outstanding anybody?) In anybody's language use of "floatright" as I did above is not really forgivable in "proper" use.

If on the other hand you just want something to work on your own private pages, a short-term stopgap would be to set Location=SomeValueIJustMadeUp and then define in your own Special:MyPage/common.css any styling which you feel fit to do so. For example (this won't work until you copy the CSS block into your own page, and then only for you!):

Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf
Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly
Sample personal CSS to cause above to centre:
div.thumb.SomeValueIJustMadeUp {margin:0 auto 0 auto;}
I repeat that this is merely an exploration of the issue, short of changing the template. AuFCL (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
This is just getting silly. I modified the template to accept direct style additions. If this upsets anybody feel free to revert it and consider supplying a sensible set of classes for people to use. Hmm?

This: {{Css PDF Crop |Image=Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf |Page= 73 |bSize = 400 |cWidth =200 |cHeight = 100 |oTop = 100 |oLeft = 100 |Location= |style=margin:0 auto 0 auto |Description= Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly }} now does this:

Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf
Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly

Whereas this: {{Css PDF Crop |Image=Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf |Page= 73 |bSize = 400 |cWidth =200 |cHeight = 100 |oTop = 100 |oLeft = 100 |Location= |style= |Description= Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly }} does this:

Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf
Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly

And this: {{Css PDF Crop |Image=Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf |Page= 73 |bSize = 400 |cWidth =200 |cHeight = 100 |oTop = 100 |oLeft = 100 |Location= |style=margin:left:auto |Description= Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly }} does this:

Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf
Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly

And finally this: {{Css PDF Crop |Image=Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf |Page= 73 |bSize = 400 |cWidth =200 |cHeight = 100 |oTop = 100 |oLeft = 100 |Location= |style=margin:0 auto 0 auto;padding:1em 1.5em 1em 1em;background:orange |Description= Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly }}[[User:AuFCL|AuFCL]] is just plain ugly (but it still demonstrates a point I hope.)

Andhrula Charitramu Part-1.pdf
Multi page pdf extract of non-first page not showing correctly

———better? AuFCL (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • AuFCL, Thanks for exploring and providing fixes. The right positioning seems to require style parameter setting as left. Actually this should have been a heavily used template on wikisource, if the template problems are resolved and a way to get the coordinates of the start of the bounding box and its width and height are easily determined on wiki. BTW, I tried to update the description comment to refer to the proper status, but I failed as the whole section is getting removed upon saving. You can see the diff--Arjunaraoc (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • AuFCL Updating the template code from en.wikipedia.org solved the problem. Thanks once again for your exploration and leads.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-16[edit]

07:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Proofread Page extension trouble brewing?[edit]

While I was looking into some coming fixes to WikiEditor in 1.23wmf22 over on the test site, I noticed the inability to edit/create any pages in the Page: namespace (produces PHP fatal error in....).

Can others duplicate? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)



Anyone know how to get Tpt's (or Phe's?) attention quickly? (1.23wmf22 is to be rolled out some time Tuesday the 15th for us) -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I can certainly duplicate, if what you mean is this:
PHP fatal error in /usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.23wmf22/extensions/ProofreadPage/includes/page/ProofreadPageContent.php line 262:

Declaration of ProofreadPageContent::preloadTransform() must be compatible with that of Content::preloadTransform()

Sounds like one way to wean us off this crazy treadmill. Perhaps it is a hint of sorts? AuFCL (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the report. The bug have been fixed by Reedy and everything should work fine shortly. Tpt (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
Seems resolved both here and @ test2 (but I've been away in the days since 1st posting this). I guess "no news is good news" (no additional comments) in this case so the bug can be closed. My thanks to all -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge Author:Lester Chadwick with Author:Howard Roger Garis[edit]

The former appears to be a pseudonym of the latter. Should they not be merged?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

With the way the Portal:Stratemeyer Syndicate used pseudonymous author's names, there is no guarantee that all the works published under Chadwick's name were actually by Garis. This is why we've created separate author pages for the various Syndicate pseudonyms. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with non-free images in transcriptions of freely licensed works[edit]

All, I am interested in whether the topic of an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP -- see foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy for a definition) for English Wikisource has been discussed. I have searched the archives but found nothing relevant.

I bring this up because several transcriptions I have worked on recently, which are freely licensed overall, contain a small number of non-free images. The following index file illustrates the issue pretty clearly:

Index:A Basic Guide to Open Educational Resources.pdf

Please look at the colored links to the pages of this book. Most pages, indicated in green, have been fully validated, including a few pages (like as this one) that have screen shots from web sites that use free licenses.

But some pages, including this one and this one, include graphics that are protected by copyright.

According to my understanding, there are two legal principles that can make it legal to use such files, depending on the circumstances:

  • Fair use, a principle in United States law that permits the use of material protected by copyright under certain circumstances; and
  • De minimis, a principle in many legal jurisdictions, that if the context of a work's reproduction gives it sufficiently minimal significance, copyright restrictions don't apply.

I believe Wikisource would be a better resource if it allowed us, in some way or another -- even if at low resolution -- to incorporate non-free files, sparingly and on occasion, into this kind of generally free work. Do others agree? If so, can anybody suggest a process for creating a suitable Wikisource:Exemption doctrine policy document?

I'll note, there is currently an effort underway to create an EDP for Meta Wiki -- see this discussion, this proposal, its talk page, this alternate draft. Hopefully this context will make it a little easier to figure out a worthwhile process for this project. -Pete (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

i support EDP, i would use the American University Code, but then my bias is well established. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 02:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I tend to prefer a hard line on copyright, especially here where entire works are housed, and don't think we should start allowing copyrighted material of any kind. However, in this case, isn't the fair-use issue happening with the original publishers? UNESCO and the Commonwealth of Learning have compiled and published this document under a free-ish licence (CC-BY-SA-3.0). I can't find any explicit acknowledgement at the moment but presumably they got permission to make this document and release it in this way. If so, that permission and licence extends to the illustrations it contains. I think we can assume good faith on their part that they produced a legal document. Summary: I think all the images are free already. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I have a different understanding: I think they would have been published in the book either under fair use, or because of de minimis. I doubt there was a free license granted for each of those images. It might be worthwhile to ask the publisher, but even if all images were in this case released under CC BY-SA, there are still other, similar books that are freely licensed overall, and contain a few images from copyright sources.
I don't think there is any way to complete a transcription of a book like this unless we create an EDP. -Pete (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
other places handle this by redacting images. beware relying on the copyright decisions of others, institutions tend to not to do nuance. (i.e. PD text and C image) maybe we can do a placeholder here, if no consensus for EDP. you would have to assess each image and redact from commons. or OTRS each screenshot. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 00:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Status of Transcription Projects[edit]

What is the best way to get an overview of the progress of a transcription project? I often stumble upon an on-going transcription project like PSM Volume 54 or a recently completed one like Character of Renaissance Architecture having a want to know more. I will wonder what were the ten last updates and by whom? So far, I have only found one way using Recent Changes "tag filter" with PSM watch. This appears to only work for pre-configured tags. I was wondering if a tool or other technique would help us find new editing partners and encourage collaboration. The answer may come from WikiSense Contributor on toolserver by daniel. It be enhanced to support wildcard searches across subpages. If there isn't a better way, shall I ask for new tag filters to be added? Thanks for the pointers. - DutchTreat (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

See if Related Changes (link in Tools, on the left side) for an Index page suits you (e.g. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Index:Character_of_Renaissance_Architecture.djvu )--Mpaa (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Page information (in your tools sidebar menu) is where very basic info like that can be found for any page in any namespace. If I undersood the premise behind the fairly recent introduction of &action=info correctly, the "footer" (or last section if you like) on that page can be configured manually to host additional links or data on a customized basis as needed/warranted.

And I suppose community proposal/support should be the avenue taken to amend/expand what is already found there. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mpaa: and @George Orwell III: Thanks. Recent Changes using the Index namespace pulls in all of the changes to Pages! Very useful, yet limited to the last 30 days. For a dormant project, digging further into the past would be nice. I appreciate the help. -- DutchTreat (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
(Warning passive/aggressive humour: may not be appreciated by anybody!) Try following the "Data item" link on this very page and you will be taken to a WikiData page titled "Wikipedia:Village pump" the aliases for which which apparently cannot be edited, even by administrators. (Hint: have a look at the nearly-endless complaints in its discussion page.) This is one of the many reasons people don't (much) like the way WD is being designed/operated/run… AuFCL (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Ghosts from the past. Fwiw... there is no "default" page for what amounts to "Central discussion", "Village pump" and similar but they all have the Project: namespace in common (which is probably why someone thought interwiki-ing everything found in the Project: namespace was a good idea; wrong - disambig(s) should have been setup first).

The Project namespace is the only one of the 16 default (technically 17 with Image: & File: "sharing" a ns) namespaces every formal wiki have in common. Project: (or ns:4) is the only one that can be "[re]assigned" to match the sitename (we are the Wikisource: project so think of Project: as a built-in redirect to Wikisource: in short).

Project:Scriptorium = Wikisource:ScriptoriumWikipedia:Village pump

-- George Orwell III (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

(Extending the example) And from enWS perspective at least: Wikipedia:Village pumpWikipedia:Village pump AuFCL (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I promise to shut up about this after pointing out one final inanity: {{gap}} has an entry in WikiData d:Q6602990 (Why are templates being indexed?) which in turn points back to w:template:spaces which is not even remotely similar. Try to grasp the disaster potential of somebody one day mindlessly "refreshing" the local template from the apparently-WikiData-endorsed wikipedia version… AuFCL (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Complex Interwikis[edit]

Hello,

How do we add interwikis in a case like Wuthering Heights. We have potentially at least 3 English editions, and many translations (already 2 in French). Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I see that the first edition was "poorly supervised", and the second was edited by Charlotte Brontë. So what is the most authoritative edition of this book? IA has several scans: 1905 ed., by Thomas Nelson, 1911, by Hodder and Stoughton, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I uploaded 2 more scans: File:Brontë - Wuthering Heights, Hodder and Stoughton, 1911.djvu and File:Brontë - Wuthering Heights, Harper, 1900.djvu. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Assuming you are referring to Wikidata items, and I'm not sure how much of this you know already, so forgive me if this seems obvious: The Books Task Force on Wikidata separates a story (or whatever) into a "Work" and an "Edition". Each story only ever has one "Work" item but each separate incarnation, version, edition, manifestation, etc, has its own "Edition" item. So there is just one Wuthering Heights work item (Q202975, FYI), which can be linked to our versions/disambiguation page, but each of the following should have its own, completely separate data item: Wuthering Heights (1847), Wuthering Heights (1850), Wuthering Heights (1892 French), Wuthering Heights (1900), Wuthering Heights (1910), Wuthering Heights (1911), and Wuthering Heights (1925 French). This does currently cause an interwiki problem because each version is connected to Wikidata at the "Edition" level, which means that, as far as the computer system is concerned, they are each not connected to any other text on any other Wikisource. I believe a request for a solution has been filed, which should allow pages to use the site links from other data items for their interwikis, but this technology does not exist yet. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
NB: I have tried to set some of this up. Q202975 is the work item: I've connected it to the versions page here and on French Wikisource. Q16464281 is the edition item for the first edition (Thomas Cautley Newby, December 1847): It isn't connected to anything at the moment but this is to what Wuthering Heights (1st edition) should be connected when it exists. Both data items are linked to each other by the "edition"/"edition or translation of" pair of properties. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Wuthering Heights, the work only went through one edition in the author's lifetime, so this must be regarded as the authoritative edition, regardless of the typographic errors. Later editions may be cleaner but their provenance is inferior.
Personally, I would prefer not to host a bunch of non-notable editions. We have Emily's first edition, we ought to have Charlotte's second edition, and we should stop there unless any subsequent edition has been identified by scholars as notable.
Hesperian 01:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your answer. This cleared my question about the English editions.
For the interwikis, the issue may be that a translation might not be done from the first edition, but from a later one. And how do we link chapters? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I think these are the kinds of excellent questions that we will need to be challenging the Wikidata developers with. When it comes to works like the Bible, we should be mapping links all the way down to individual verses, and the issue of mapping out what is a translation / version / edition of what would be a massive scholarly undertaking. Hesperian 01:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the current consensus is, in most cases, to avoid connecting individual chapters with their own items. It can be done though: each item would be part of (P361) the novel and instance of (P31) chapter. To be honest, I don't have too much experience with works/editions/etc at the moment—I'm mostly connecting authors (still over 3,000 to go)—but I don't think that all aspects of a standard structure has been absolutely decided yet. Personally, I wouldn't want to create items for every chapter of every book; the process takes long enough as it is. The old fashioned interwiki links still work as an alternative. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. The best version for the average reader is not always the one with the best provenance. For most works, I think we should have at least one edition in modern spelling and typography. We should also host one version annotated for a general audience of major works. (This is of course passive, ignoring the work behind them, though straight prose is usually relatively simple. But I don't think we should discourage people from doing these.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I modify my position somewhat in the direction of yours. All the same, one would hope that we would host an "edition in modern spelling and typography" had been identified by scholars as in some sense canonical, rather than simply picking a random edition with no thought as to who has done what to it in bringing it to modernity. With respect to Wuthering Heights that niche is filled by the 1976 "Clarendon text"; copyright issues aside, we would definitely want to be hosting that. Hesperian 05:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-17[edit]

08:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Wright American Fiction collection[edit]

Folks might be interested in the revamped Wright American Fiction collection, covering American fiction from 1774 to 1900, and offering full-text versions alongside high-quality metadata. Ijon (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wiki site for data tables[edit]

Recently I participated in a digital humanities hackathon where we created programs for automatic handling of texts. For example, one program involved automatic detection of Biblical phrases in modern prose and poetry. For this and similar projects, we needed quick access to text in a table format, such as, a table of all verses in the Bible. Although such table can be created automatically from Wikisource using the API, it is much more convenient to be able to download the table itself in a computer-readable format, such as comma-seperated-values.

The problem is, a CSV file of the Bible (or other large texts) would be too large to put in a Wikisource page. So, my question is: do you know of a wiki-like website where uses can create and edit data tables in a format that is convenient both for human editors and for computers? --Erel Segal (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

What about Commons:? I can't find anything about whether they accept or ban CSV files from a quick look but it seems like a reasonable thing for them to host and filesize is less of a problem (100MB maximum for normal uploads but they have systems for uploaing larger files if necessary). ADD: I should say, in this case "create and edit" would mean creating it in a normal fashion and editing with external software (then re-uploading it) but CSV is just text; most software down to "Notepad" should be able to edit it. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
They do not accept CSV or any other database files. It also has other disadvantages relative to editing a page using the internal editor, for example, AFAIK you cannot see diff's between versions in Commons. Is there a wiki site with an internal editor for editing tables? --Erel Segal (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't think of a better alternative. I know people have suggested something like this but I have not heard of it ever being done. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-18[edit]

07:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Romanes Lecture as Feature Text on Main Page[edit]

The main page will show the Portal:Romanes Lecture as the featured text in a few days for the month of May. I created two design candidates to be considered by the community to showcase the 26 texts. I welcome your comments. - DutchTreat (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I like the gallery of quotes approach but I think the quote itself should be text rather than part of an image file. Text will be readable even if the image is not, including on screen-reader software for the visually impaired; it can be read by machines for search engine purposes; and it allows names and titles to be wikilinked. We could use the masthead alone and cycle through textual quotes with templates. That said, we could use the existing images on the portal itself. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Based on your feedback, I created a new version using wikitext instead of the quote embedded inside of the SVG. Since this is the main page, I see the importance of making the quotes readable by all and wikilinked. See these updates on my user page. I prefer the aesthetics of having the quote in my chosen font with select line breaks, but understand your point about accessibility. Thanks for the input. - DutchTreat (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
That looks good. Added line breaks should be OK and either {{serif}} or something using similar code can at least suggest a font to the user's computer. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@AdamBMorgan: Incorporated your tip for the fonts. Also, copied a version to the subpage Portal:Romanes Lecture/frontispiece to aid with reuse on the main page. If this should become a template, I would like some help. Thanks for the guidance. - DutchTreat (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@DutchTreat: We can technically use it as a template as it is, as I've used it on the portal itself (other portals transclude their own subpages already, so this should be OK). I've added a random function to change the quotes, currently based on the list on your user subpage. We should probably expand that to all of the lectures before it gets featured. I will copy the portal subpage to the protected featured-text template for the main page version. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@AdamBMorgan: Perfect! I agree getting quotes from all 26 text would be ideal. I will add more as time permits. - DutchTreat (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)