Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2014-11

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 , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Announcements

A Unicode character map

I found this BabelMap software online from which community would benefit. This replaces my collection of web links to Unicode characters. — Ineuw talk 23:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Internet Archive Book/Flickr images

It's worth a look if you have the time — Ineuw talk 01:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposals

BOT approval requests

Help

Repairs (and moves)

Other discussions

mw:Extension:TemplateData utilising this locally

After moving in a version of Template:Phabricator from mediawiki.org, I have become a little more acquainted with mw:Extension:TemplateData which is described as "introduce[ing] a <templatedata> tag and an API which together allow editors to specify how templates should be invoked. This information is available as a nicely-formatted table for end-users, and as a JSON API, which enables other systems (e.g. VisualEditor) to build interfaces for working with templates and their parameters." (Comment that the information page is not exactly simple, and a simpler guide is needed)

It would seem that we have been a little behind the times in utilising an available tool, and something that each of us should be looking to update our process(es). Might also be worth us looking for this as a maintenance task. Seems that WP is well into this and have information at w:Wikipedia:TemplateData, and if we ever get to the VE or similar experience it will need to be done. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I started to add templateData to my core templates at first but have stopped making this a priority since. The underlying "issue" in a nutshell is we'll never get to VisualEditor & similar tools that build upon such enhanced extensions until we master Dialogs & such in WikiEditor first (never mind just agreeing on a standard WikiEditor toolbar layout for WS).

In light of this apparent lack of will needed to finally cut the classic toolbar/user-only scripted tool cord once and for all, there really is no reason to discuss incorporating this as a new practice or policy by itself imho. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It sets good practice, it documents parameters, and one day it will be useful. Waiting until all the others ducks are in a row just increases the administrative burden. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
It's useful now; just not anywhere else save Wikipedia. We are unable to capitalize on that not just because we haven't been practicing it but because we are also unnecessarily behind the so called "basics" needed to truly implement what it and similar enhancements offer. And since our "mission" differs notably from Commons' or Wikipedia's, all the related development to date has been too infobox, citation or media specific for us to ever realistically capitalize on at the same time. Imo, without our own dog(s) in this fight, we're just dreaming about this being useful [here on WS] "one day". -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Overall, there's probably no need to rush. If you use citation templates very often, then I recommend getting those documented in the next month or two. Auto-filling citations (give it a URL or ISBN, and it gives you the complete citation) are on the way, and it's possible to use them in the existing wikitext editor.
TemplateData is brittle. If you have one comma out of place, then the whole thing breaks. There's a GUI editor in development that will simplify adding it. I don't remember whether the GUI editor is going to be provided here on 06 November, or if that's just the rest of the Wikipedias, and then non-Wikipedia projects will get access even later. I think it's everyone in early November. But if you want it sooner than scheduled, then let me know, and I'll ask James F to make it happen as soon as he can get to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checking ( Fancy dresses described : or, What to wear at fancy balls)

I found this: https://archive.org/details/fancydressesdesc00holtrich

If it's an actual author, I can't find anything on them. If it's a puesdonym - Section 57 here can be reasonably applied, ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48 )

So is it reasonable to consider this one acceptable for local upload? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Why local upload? And that Ardern Holt is a pseudonym? — Ineuw talk 23:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Some points that might help provide a partial answer.
  1. I can't find a date of death for Ardern Holt. (Hence my Refdesk enquiry), The work is Published pre 1923 (so is PD in the US), but can't be uploaded to Commons because I can't be sure if the author(Assuming not a pusedonym) died before 1944.
  2. In respect of the name being a pusedonym, I tried searching for it as an exact match on the 1911 census, which didn't seemingly find an exact match.
  3. Additional note, a source listed in the refdesk thread indicates that Ardern Holt wrote a column in a magazine called "Queen" (which later merged with another to become the UK version of "Harpers Bazzar".) The sources say they were active from 1866 to 1916. If it's one person, assuming they started writing when around 20 (they may have started earlier or later given the start date), that would suggest them being 70 or so in 1916. On those calculations they would have been about 80 in 1926, meaning that they would be around 98 in 1944. Whilst it's not implausible for someone from the 1840's to be alive in 1944, I'm reasonably confident that seems unlikely, the actual death being sometime between 1916 and 1946 (when on the above they'd be 100)
  4. If the Ardern Holt is a byline (used by more than one staff writer), within reasonable bounds it might not be possible to find the exact 'Ardern Holt' concerned with the 1877 edition.
  5. The publisher is "Debenham and Freebody" (they later became the Debenhams chain in the UK), so given the 1877 version was published under their auspices. If they are regarded as the creator (the other's identity not known) then I'm not sure when the work expired.
  6. Later editions (Such as one from 1896) credit a Lillian Youg for the illustrations, The 1877 edition doesn't. I've not been able to find any dates for Lillian Young either.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A very good analysis, but please be reasonable, there is such a thing overdoing it. Just load it up to the commons. — Ineuw talk 00:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
What Ineuw said. Copyright Act, 1956 (United Kingdom)/Schedule 2 indicates that under that legislation it would have been out of copyright in at the date of that Act (t set 50 years after publication), though the 1909 Act is the reference point for its contemporary legislation. The author should be considered an unidentified pseudonym, and you should add your research to the author talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Licence {{PD-anon-1923|1877}} — billinghurst sDrewth 03:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Done - Commons:File talk:Fancy dresses described, or, What to wear at fancy balls (1887).djvu
Can you advise on what to put in the Author: page? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
This is what I put, based on the information I had Author:Ardern_Holt, and I'm copying this thread to the talk page there ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-41

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf2) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since 2 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from 7 October, and on all Wikipedias from 9 October (calendar).
  • If you make a code mistake when editing a Lua script, you won't be able to save your edit. [8] [9]
  • We fixed some more Internet Explorer bugs. If you use Internet Explorer 10, you will be able to use VisualEditor next week. Support for earlier versions is coming next. [10]
  • On Thursday, the tool to edit TemplateData will come to 30 more wikis. [11] [12]
  • You can help sort bugs in the Book and PDF export tool on October 8. [13]
  • 1% of logged-out readers are getting pages from servers that run the HHVM tool. HHVM should make pages load faster. [14]

Future changes

  • You can look at the plan of the Mobile team for their future work. [15]
  • More changes to Media Viewer are coming. It will be easier to disable it, and you will see the caption below the image. [16] [17]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

06:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Lowell Fg.VII..png

Uploaded locally because the scan appeared to be clip,, Does anyone here have library access to the original work? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

it would be helpful to have an author. i’m guessing, but is this it? [18] Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 13:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for Info on Wikisource GLAM collaboration

I'm the Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland, and one of the ideas that has recently progressed from being bandied about to being seriously considered is the prospect of working with Scottish Universities that offer Gaelic language courses to encourage their students to work with Wikimedia projects. In addition to translating articles on Wikipedia, I was thinking of getting the Library to release its collection of hundreds of Gaelic books, some written in Gaelic and some not, to Wikimedia Commons with the idea that Gaelic speakers could transcribe them to Wikisource to help improve language proficiency and access.

I don't have contact with many Wikisource volunteers and I was wondering if anyone had any ideas as to how to move forward with this kind of collaboration, and what would be the best approach? I notice that there's no Gaelic Wikisource but that it is a supported language, so I was wondering if adding Gaelic texts to the English Wikisource (under the appropriate category/ies) for the time being would be best, or starting a new language domain? I was also hoping someone with experience could give me pointers on training new volunteers on Wikisource, if possible. Basically any information or help would be fantastic! ACrockford (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be appropriate for the Multi-language wiki - mul:Main Page/Gàidhlig ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Failing that you'd need to lobby for subdomain gd.wikisource.org ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
In terms of Scans, yes lobby as hard as you can for free scans :) should ideally be under a free license so that they can be uploaded to Commons.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@ACrockford: The guidance is m:Language proposal policy. I don't see that there is the call for a separate subdomain at this point, so it would be hosted at mul: and when/if there are sufficient works then it can be separated to its own subdomain. @Zyephyrus: can you assist here with the best means to take this forward at mul? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
i would suggest firming up what their formating capabilities are. the scans are nicely done, but could they add a dejavu option? having an editathon where there is some training on match & split would be good to fill the pipeline. then more events to train editors in wikicode transcription. seems doable, depends on institutional partners. the educational foundation has the tools to track work, and accounts. there dosen’t appear to be training materials, slide decks for wikisource w:Wikipedia:GLAM/Bookshelf, so you may be blazing the trail. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 01:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Even though the Library itself doesn't host dejavu versions of the scans on their website, they do partner with Internet Archive which provides dejavu options, so that wouldn't be the tricky part, it would mostly be getting the Library to agree to release the scans under a CC-BY-SA license at the most restrictive, and ideally a CC0 license. Thanks ShakespeareFan00 and billinghurst for the information on the multi-language wiki and the Language proposal policy - I think you're right that there's no call yet for a separate subdomain but it's good to know what the option would look like in the future. If there's no materials existing yet for training on Wikisource then it would be fantastic to get some put together; @Slowking4: do you know whether there have been any such editathons or training events in the UK thus far, or elsewhere? Even if I can't meet with someone in person, if I could make contact via email or Skype that would be helpful. I will try and teach myself for the time being, but pointers never go amiss! Thanks again. ACrockford (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
We have a number of pages locally that we believe and try to have helpful (left sidebar "Help"), and the tools are the same x-wikisource. Re training/editathon, maybe @Charles Matthews: has some information. I am comfortable doing stuff in Skype if that is helpful to you, though my timezone is reverse of yours, so may not be overly helpful. Usually one of the best ways to learn our basics is our proofread of the month (and you will find that from the front page) which we pick for basics, support and something with a bit of interest/difference. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks billinghurst, that is very helpful! I've been looking through the help pages and they are really useful in terms of getting myself orientated, so I think that it would mainly be great to get insight for training events or editathons, and potentially for GLAM collaborations as well. I might take you up on the offer of a Skype chat at some point as things move forward but I'll try and work things out without bugging you too much. The proofread of the month is a great idea, as well. ACrockford (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any UK training centred on Wikisource: a fairly obvious gap in the market. You can contact me if you want to talk this over. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
yes, i would strongly encourage you to make a slide deck and share at the GLAM bookshelf. another tool in the kit for GLAMs world-wide. and the easier we can make it for the average librarian, the better. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 22:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

American Revolutionary War

While categorizing (yet another) uncategorized book, I noticed that we have no category on the American Revolutionary War.

Do we really have nothing on that subject? Is there someone familiar with military, diplomatic, and historical works hosted here who could populate such a category?

It seems like a pretty big hole in our coverage not to have this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I confidently went here and—rather to my surprise—found but a single work by Kipling. I sort of doubt this is what you were looking for. Looks like you might be right? If so, might it be called something along the lines of the Continental.. (or perhaps Second Continental Congress...) And in any case is a Portal or a Category more appropriate? (Don't forget: "American Revolutionary War" might just as well apply to Simón Bolívar as it does to to George Washington. AuFCL (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I looked in several possible parent categories and found nothing. In Category:History of the United States there are subcategories for the US Civil War, and the two world Wars, but not for their war of independence, nor do there seem to be listed any items that would be appropriately placed into a category about the Revolution. What we choose to call the category is immaterial to me, but the complete lack of such a category and of items to go into it seems problematical. At your mention, I went looking and found that there is indeed a Portal:American Revolution, but it has had little editing activity in the last two years. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
There are too many Brits, and their old "God save the Queen" allies here, to start posting about how our colonials defeated them twice and saved them twice so long ago. :0) —Maury (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
well, i got back last month from the Bladensburg re-enactment. they unfortunately did not have a Congreve rocket to scare away the stout maryland militia with a loud bang. i take it you’re from new orleans. there are plenty of letters floating around, maybe we need to get w:Joseph Plumb Martin’s memoir [19] in the queue. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 01:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You cannot bring Martin's memoir here and edit it. I myself have never been in New Orleans - on purpose. —Maury (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

darn, i was going to make a special trip to LOC for the first edition [20] since the archive copy is so bad. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 03:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917) and Tanakh

So this is kind of a mess with a storied history. The first link should go to a specific edition, the exact text of which we've had some copyright problems in the past over but which we're now working to replace with a clean text. In practice it sometimes (e.g.) redirects to pages from Tanakh. Those will be fixed to point to the new text in time. Tanakh though, I have no idea what to do with. As it is now, most of it is side by side English and Hebrew. The Hebrew all seems to be from here, and has an unclear copyright status (sourced from an XML file here which sources from text from this project, can't find any clear copyright statements on them). The English text is variously from the copyright problematic source of the JPS 1917 translation, a source which may or may not be the same depending on when it was fetched, some original translations and something from about.com??. Also some pages redirect to Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917) just to complete the picture. Do we just salt the earth with this or what? Prosody (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I really don't understand the issue? If the JPS 1917 publication is available from the IA, why bother with this goulash? — Ineuw talk 03:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah probably should have explained what I was thinking for ways forward, sorry.
We're already going to rebase Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917) on a scan. Tanakh has some different things going on and I dunno what's worth doing, all of it takes contributor effort out of a finite pool of the stuff.
  1. Side-by-side English and Hebrew texts. What's there now has possible copyright problems and needs to be rebased. All the side-by-sides I've seen so far on WS were original translations, I don't know whether anyone's interested in doing that kind of work for a non-original text or whether anyone even thinks it's appropriate for WS.
  2. Parts of original translation which may be redundant with other original WS translation projects.
And I those are kind of orthogonal. Prosody (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
To clarify for those who don't understand, the Tanakh is the Old Testatment. Personally, I don't think we should host Hebrew text for all the right reasons. It will never get done. We don't have members, and we are an English language site. I saw the mess that was made with an attempt to translate the Talmud into English. If you insist on a Hebrew translation on this site, perhaps we can connect a Hebrew text from the Hebrew language wiki to be placed alongside. There is a very good chance that there they know the Hebrew source of the JPS translation, and if they don't, they have the resources to find the info. I glanced at the Biblical work they are doing and there are a number of Bible scholars there. — Ineuw talk 04:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Ineuw, the additional wrinkle is that there are published editions of the JPS translation with parallel English and Hebrew text side-by-side in the same volume. I own a couple of such volumes. So, it's not completely impossible that we might end up hosting something like that. Yes, it's not likely to be done soon with our current editors, but if there is a chance of getting a source, or if an original translation might be done, then I'm for preserving any work done thus far that does not violate copyright. Sometimes, just having the unfinished work lying around attracts someone with the special expertise to get it done. Where the material should be located, and how it should be formatted, is quite another matter, and on that I have no definite opinion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
This is the goulash! I am simply referring to the JPS version on IA and not another version! Please don't bring in other publications, translations etc. Just stick to this single PD version of 1917. We host numerous versions of many works and let this single work stand on it's own. If you wish to host another version with Hebrew translation, that has nothing to do with this particular version. We have the King James version, the Septuagint and The Vulgate, all versions of the Bible. They are all translations but you wouldn't think of mixing them together.— Ineuw talk 06:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
No, Ineuw, I mean that there is a JPS translation edition published in multiple hardback volumes, with the Hebrew on the left and English on the right. It's not another version that I'm talking about, it's the JPS. The mixing together of Hebrew and English was done in the printed copies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S: I happen to like the project because it's DjVu and not copy and paste, And if there are any pictures, I a volunteer to process and upload them as well. Perhaps we'll get to see a real young Charlton Heston . — Ineuw talk 06:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"You wouldn't think of mixing them together." Perversely, we apparently already have and have done it. I guess that gets at the root of what I'm asking, as it's the greater part of Tanakh. Where do we draw the line on original synthesis of works? I can see for the case of original translations, doing side-by-side serves a editorial function in providing a specific source text. And if we were to start a new project to transcribe one of the editions that EncycloPetey mentioned which is multilingual, that would certainly be fine, as it's not original. But as for things like what's now in Tanakh, or the Bible translation comparison pages, or the Aesop's Fables translation/redaction comparison, which of these should we have on WS? Prosody (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I see your point, but in all honesty it's an unfair comparison. The Bible translations that you brought up as examples, they are all in English! If you go for a Hebrew translation, it's alien to most of the members of the community and they won't be able to contribute, so they will just avoid it because with a Hebrew translation they will not get a sense of accomplishment. I am being realistic to realize that in addition to loving literature in many forms, we are also contributing for the sense of accomplishment. The number of people who could contribute in Hebrew on this wiki is very limited. Myself, I read and speak a 50 year old common street Hebrew, and understand most of what I read, but I would never undertake translating even a sentence of the Bible, let alone a paragraph. I would not be able to translate the essence of what is intended to be conveyed. Not to mention the duplication of the right to left writing. — Ineuw talk 08:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Can you please provide the link to the English/Hebrew JPS publication of 1917? I don't think we are talking about the same publication and year. I am referring to the English only publication of 1917 in the public domain of which there are 4 (four) identical copies on the Commons under different names. And, it does not have a Hebrew translation. The four Commons copies are: Commons:File:JPS-1917-Universal.djvu, Commons:File:JPS-1917-Harvard.pdf, Commons:File:JPS-1917-Michigan.djvu, Commons:File:JPS1917-Torah.djvu.— Ineuw talk 16:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't provide a link to a physical object on my bookshelf. Sorry. The particular volume I own was put out in 1948, not 1917, and acknowledges use with permission of the JPS translation. I cannot find information concerning the Hebrew, but would be very surprised if it had been altered from the Masoretic text. Also, I was mistaken in my memory, the Hebrew is on the right, and the English is on the left of each page.
I have not looked through the various files uploaded to Commons, and so cannot comment on those. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Who's working on the Tanakh files? If someone wants to make a Wikisource translation, I'm not going to encourage them, but I don't see any reason to block them. We do need to make it copyright clean, and I would nuke the whole thing if no one is interested in helping us sort it out.
Edition copyrights are frequently obnoxious. We should probably upload a clearable Hebrew edition to Commons and work from that.

1500 validated indexes

I was just looking at our counts, and I noticed these two stats

  • No. of validated works = 1,500
  • No. of proofread only works = 801

which are nice numbers to celebrate. Firstly a good round number, and that we do seem to be moving our works to the validated status. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-42

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

Problems

  • 10% of Tool Labs was down on October 7. [23]
  • Tool Labs was also broken on October 11. [24]

Software changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf3) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since 9 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from 14 October, and on all Wikipedias from 16 October (calendar).
  • 5% of logged-out readers are getting pages from servers that run the HHVM tool. HHVM should make pages load faster. You can also test it as a Beta Feature. [25]

Meetings

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

08:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Index: namespace fill gadget should now be functional

I managed to grab Phe in IRC and he has been able to resolve the issue that we have had with the failure of the Index: ns fill gadget populating from the Commons file book templates. smiley — billinghurst sDrewth 13:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that this gadget refers to populate (create) the non existent pages, I would most happy to use it. But, I can't find it anywhere in the Gadgets. Creating pages manually is an unnecessary waste of time. — Ineuw talk 17:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Preferences/Gadgets/[section]Development (in beta):
down near end of list: "Upon creation of an Index: page enables addition of metadata from the file at Commons."
All good now? AuFCL (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
as per Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2013-02#Announcements — billinghurst sDrewth 23:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I must try it.— Ineuw talk

So, this gadget "enables addition of metadata"? What, in practical terms and common language, does that mean? I tried activating the gadget and could not find anything different, so I'm not sure what this gadget is supposed to do or how it is supposed to function. Please respond without using the word "metadata". --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe it only works at the moment of import. Did you import anything?— Ineuw talk 17:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: When you create an Index: ns page it autofills the the fields with the corresponding fields from the {{information}} or {{book}} templates in use locally or at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Re metadata usage, we use the term at these pages in Help: ns, though as you allude there could be some more clarity. As usual,/support help pages are our undoing. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
So, the information about the edition, such as author, date, publisher, etc., which appear on the Index page when those fields are filled? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The pertinent mapping is …
— billinghurst sDrewth 09:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Author:Emily Dickinson

What's the source of our Emily Dickinson material? There's a serious concern in that the public domain editions are all heavily edited and the first edition to be faithful to the originals was published in the 1950s and was renewed. We have original editions, but we also have a lot of poems that aren't sourced.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

perhaps you could be more specific? i see only the 1890, 1891, and 1896 editions. no 1955 edited by Thomas H. Johnson, or 1998 edited by R.W. Franklin. (although you could make the argument that unpublished manuscript copyright had passed.) Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 23:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Look at the author index template at the bottom of the author page and its contents. The individual poems by Dickinson in the main namespace are listed there. Many are unsourced. Prosody (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


I have no copyright concerns here. The original poems are the creative work of Dickinson. I accept the argument that the heavily edited versions published in the 1890s are derivative works, and that the originals weren't published until 1955. Johnson copyrighted that 1955 work, but Johnson was not the owner of copyright in the original poems, so his copyright in that 1955 work extends only to his notes, commentary, etc. I suggest that the formalities necessary to register copyright in the original poems were not met. Even if they were, copyright law makes it very clear that only the author or the author's heirs can renew copyright in a work, regardless of any transfer of rights. Johnson's renewal of copyright in his 1955 compilation is utterly meaningless when it comes to the original poems themselves, because Johnson never held copyright in those works in the first place, and even if he did he was not authorised to renew that copyright. Dickinson's poems are in the public domain. Hesperian 04:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If you read the introduction to the 1955 edition--which, let's just say, archive.org is not nearly so careful as we are--you'll find that there is a chain of custody wherein Harvard ended up with a claim to the copyrights of Dickinson, and as per the Copyright Office's Circular 15: "Only in the case of the following four types of works may the copyright proprietor (owner) claim renewal: Posthumous work (a work published after the author’s death as to which no copyright assignment or other contract for exploitation has occurred during the deceased author’s lifetime). Renewal may be claimed as proprietor of copyright in a posthumous work." http://collections.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/bin/detail?fileID=671852961X says the Renewing Entity is "The President and Fellows of Harvard College (PPW of Emily Elizabeth Dickinson)" (where PPW is proprietor of copyright in a posthumous work) and New Matter: "new front and end matter, editorial notes, some new text of prev. pub. poems, and 41 poems pub. for the first time." I don't know that they dotted every i and crossed every t, but they do have copyright on the face of it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Well I can't argue with that! I think you've made a pretty solid argument for the removal of all our unsourced Dickinson poetry. Hesperian 06:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking at this link and the limitations seem pretty limited and I wouldn't say it calls for "all our unsourced" material to be removed. Also i'm curious how does duel authorship work? would all material have to be from both authors?(Emily Elizabeth Dickinson & Thomas Herbert Johnson.) or could they be separate? And it looks like its a copy right to just this work http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674676008 and not the literal poems themselves. So we would only have to avoid whatevers in that work. it's only 41 additional poems.... --Rochefoucauld (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
If it's unsourced, it's virtually impossible to tell whether it falls into "some new text of prev. pub. poems, and 41 poems pub. for the first time" or not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
It is either published or it is not. If it is unpublished, then it is now out of copyright. If it is published prior to 1923, it is out of copyright. If it is published after 1923 in the US it has its rights renewed specifically for a publication and is in copyright, or it didn't and it is out of copyright.

We check the 1955 work, and we remove what was in there as "first published", and we note what else was published in the work which can be discussed in time. It is both simplistic and wrong to say that unsourced means copyright, and the scope of the issue faced would be better determined and explained. At the moment everyone has to do their own digging and can easily be operating on a different understanding. We should be looking to get scans, and migrate the works. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The easiest way to know that we got things right is to source all the poems we can to clearly PD editions. I didn't say unsourced means copyright, but unsourced means we don't know its provenance. It's much more reliable to work from what we know to be PD, then to try and figure out what is copyrighted from the 1955 work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Author:Thomas Edison

Why do we have an entry for Author:Thomas Edison when he is not the author of any of the works listed? I was told that we do not have subject pages but this is really Subject:Thomas Edison. Is the rule to create a page called Author:Thomas Edison when we mean Subject:Thomas Edison as a work-around? Why don't we have Subject:Thomas Edison so we can have all the articles related to one person listed on a page even if they have no works they are the author of? As a first time user it makes sense to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Edison wrote patents, etc. and as such able to be listed as an author at enWS, even when we do not yet have works for the author. The protocol is to have {{no works}} used in the ==Works== section. It was a discussion that the community had to not separate works about authors to a separate page in the Portal: ns, and to have the practice of a section ==Works about /surname/== on the author page. Authorship is our defacto "notability" equivalent as per WS:WWI otherwise for historical records, it is a more traditional notability for inclusions, and still we are less likely to create a specific Portal: ns page, and instead curate the work based on subject matter, depending on the number of works in play. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Huh? Sorry, your explanation isn't clear at all. It is no clearer here than when you responded at the Edison talk page and responded at my user talk page and at the Susannah Lattin page. I came here to find someone else, someone that can explain it in plain English. Can you please let someone else respond, or are you the only person here? "Edison wrote patents". Edison holds patents, but that does not mean that he wrote them. They are usually written by the patent attorney or similar person with a patent/scientific writing background. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It's very simple, Edison was an author. i.e. he wrote things down and they have been published. The first hit in a Google search leads to a list of books, albeit posthumously published but nonetheless containing his written works. At the time you created the Susannah Lattin page I looked for evidence that she wrote and that it was published. I could not find any evidence, but by that time Billinghurst had responded to you and there was no need for me to make the same response. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, that was amazingly clear and simple. So you are an author if you have works listed say in worldcat. Can you point me to the conversation where Subject:John Smith was rejected? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
That is one of the criteria for authorship. You are an author here if a work that you wrote is able to be included by Wikisource:What Wikisource includes — billinghurst sDrewth 02:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Every page header gone awry

Every page header (the colored rectangular box) has suddenly gone wonky and disappeared, both for Portals as well as for works. Is this just me, is it the result of something gone wrong, or yet another side effect of a software change? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Not seeing anything like that here fwiw. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing now either, so it must have been just me or something transitory. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-43

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. You can read translations.

Recent changes

  • You can test a new system to see math using MathML. Go to your display options and choose "⧼mw math mathml⧽".
  • You can add badges in Wikidata for quality articles and featured lists. [29] [30]

File information cleanup

Problems

  • Developers fixed a security problem. If you use Internet Explorer 6, you won't be able to log in any more. You should use a newer browser. [32]

Changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf4) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since October 16. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from October 21, and on all Wikipedias from October 23 (calendar).
  • 10% of logged-out readers are getting pages from servers that run the HHVM tool. HHVM should make pages load faster. You can also test it as a Beta Feature. [33]
  • If you add the same parameter twice in a template, it now puts the page in a tracking category. [34] [35]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

13:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Image licensing paperwork

Have any of you seen this report on image licensing documentation here at the English Wikisource? https://tools.wmflabs.org/mrmetadata/wikisource/en/index.html

The goal is to standardize documentation so that bots and scripts can keep track of it and so that people are more likely to re-use images correctly. It looks like there are a lot of images here that have no machine-readable information on their pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Many of those are the higher quality images extracted to be aligned with djvu files where the page placeholders are marked with {{raw image}}. They are marked way and need to be trimmed/tidied/cleaned then moved to Commons with the metadata improved as part of the production process. Maybe we should be talking to Commons at c:Commons:Graphic Lab about assisting cleaning and migrating. We probably need to wikiprojectinate (I love creating words) at this side first. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
In for a penny, in for a pound. I have start a conversation at c:Commons:Graphics village pump (for prosperity archive link) — billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I already cleaned and categorized and identified this image. How can I remove the hidden categories, to be transferred to the commons?
Fixing the broken template helped, and I will have to dig through other help pages to work out what is broken there. I may just be a local implementation to one of our templates. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.— Ineuw talk 00:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
With the greatest (possible) respect to all concerned, I keep hearing this expression "machine-readable…(whatever)" bandied around with no apparent attempt to define what is required. Are we talking binary information embedded within (say) a JPEG/PNG/DJVU etc. file here; or merely some kind of parameter in a wrapping template… or both or neither? In short: what to fix/how to fix/at least one little concrete example of a before-and-after would be really nice! (Apologies to Ineuw if this is a rewording of his question above.) AuFCL (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@AuFCL: It is a bit like starting a book half way through. There has been previous components on this page, and other pages. The basic concept is "Machine-readable data makes it easier to reuse Wikimedia content consistently with best practices for attribution." and it is achieved by having class components in our templates. You have seen bits that we have had added to {{Author}}, but this is for files, so includes {{information}}, {{book}}, {{license}} and the project in play is explained at m:File metadata cleanup drive and the specific data at c:Commons:Machine-readable data. There is no single good place to find the explanatory, and that is the inimitable wiki-way. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, well I appreciate your attempted explanation, and have read those references. However my questions still stand in form unchanged; and I consider my ability to assist in this matter to be utterly compromised until such time as realistically addressed. (Also, as one Colonial to another I am uncertain as to the terminology most applicable to this effort: should it be properly referred to as apparently being "half-arsed" in conception; or was an entire arse involved somehow? I can see some real pitfalls in the careless (or indeed caring and unskilled) use of that "tool." AuFCL (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Before everyone dismisses my earlier remark (for flippant I freely admit it to be,) there is another fundamental issue going on here—and that is one of scale. If the related discussion is accurate, then there are of the order of a million files currently in breach of this requirement…

Admittedly pulling some figures out of the air, an individual might be prepared to address up to (say) 100 items, yet will baulk at higher job-lists and will possibly not even get started on any of them. In similar fashion a community (like the enWS membership?) might be prepared to attack up to a 10000-item task list; but will almost certainly quail long before that. See a pattern here? Million-entry lists ought to be shaved down radically by completely automated process—prob/possibly quite crudely—before even contemplating hitting humans with the remaining detailed clean-up. The current approach could almost be designed to fail. Listen guys, we can do this the smart way or not at all; because what I'm seeing at present is the really, (chronically) really dumb approach. AuFCL (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a wiki, we have to start somewhere, and you have to know when you are finished. Some will be template fixes like here, some will be the addition of templates. It is good that the WMF is taking the step to allow for the appropriate licensing, and the ability to grab metadata and botify. Yes, some aspects are suboptimum, not new, not a surprise. (Re arses. Virtual arses (metaphorical or empirical, full or half) will be what they are. It is not the virtual that have my attention.). If you want good answers, then ask "Guillame (WMF)", he knows WS well, and is a good bloke. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe i'm not understanding this correctly but would it make more sense to make the {{raw image}} template to produce better machine readable images? if that is at all possible... --Rochefoucauld (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
i think they’re just talking template wrapper to get "machine readable", since the template will have the machine code. i’ve personally handled 10000 item backlogs; there have been community backlog drives for 100000 items. but as you see, it’s ad hoc, either threaten mass deletion, or cheer lead people; very little planning and team building. as for "completely automated process" i kinda made that request, and got a link to VisualFileChange.js they’re going to have to triage, sort by user upload, and automate like cases, but they haven’t figured that out yet. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 19:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
(portentous drumroll) It begins… It is just as I feared. I am already seeing diagnostic screen captures being tagged here to be "moved to commons." The no-brain crew are at work. AuFCL (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there any need to be abusive to our fellow volunteers? It doesn't make the process of getting things done any easier.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I apologize I'll just sit here and do nothing for now on and watch you do all the work. I'm so excited! I can't wait to watch your contribution page. --Rochefoucauld (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
My comments above have absolutely nothing to do with you or your laudable efforts, and everything to do with what I consider the near-criminal misuse of volunteer efforts in what I consider to be a misguided, mal-timed inappropriate abuse of valuable volunteer resource in a matter far better addressed through moderately intelligent programmed pre-processing followed by submission for ratification by the volunteer pool.

And frankly @Prosfilaes, you are being deliberately baiting of an unduly and inappropriately politicised activity. You can be 'so much better than this. How about trying just a little bit?

No, you will not see any contributions to this travesty executed in my name until such time as the project is (sanely) defined; delineated and reasonable machine effort intelligently deployed where appropriate.

Get it? I am really passionate about this. I'd mark this as "Could do better (with any effort; because to date I can see evidence for so very little.) My 2¢. AuFCL (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

don’t know why you’re so passionate about the usual mismanagement, it’s the wiki-way. volunteers will do what they want, not what is most effective. but the only criminal thing around here are the potty mouths which cross the line (not you, and don’t look at Arbcom) i don’t share the zeal to transfer to commons either, given the propensity for capricious deletions there. but it is the trend, many libraries putting up book image scans with CC. i would encourage the use of artwork template, not information template for these transfers. i have uploaded book scans for people lacking images on a case by case basis though. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 23:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm being deliberately baiting by suggesting that we don't call our fellow volunteers "no brains"? No, I can't be so much better by standing by when personal abuse is being thrown around on Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
+1+1+1 it is inaccurate and unhelpful. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Files with no machine-readable license

Okay, I have found an issue that we need to resolve.

Files categorise to Category:Files with no machine-readable license when the class licensetpl is not present in a license template (as described at c:Commons:Machine-readable data#Machine readable data set by license templates). We could fix this simply by adding that class to {{license}} which is the basis for our licences … BUT there is at least one licence {{Copyright author}} that uses the template that is not public domain.

To make things clean to upgrade, and minimise a great hierarchy change, I suggest that we look to add a public domain parameter to {{license}}, eg. PD = yes that will include the required class; and we add that parameter to all existing templates that require it, which will be the vast majority. While we could go the reverse and have it as a default component, and exclude non-compliant licences, I think that it is a better practice to mindfully add it. This is a community decision, not one admins, so I put it out there for comment.

Hmm, it is probably more complex that first envisage (he says after reading m:File metadata cleanup drive/How to fix metadata). I haven't the time presently to bury myself in the detail, so those who may be more attuned to these things (@Slowking4:?) please chip in and express opinions. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
my impression is that they are trying to migrate all text metadata into information templates, which makes it machine readable. this is so it will render in the media viewer, lol. commons appears to have over 1 million of these files (too many to count) there is a tool that adds an information template wrapper on file’s metadata https://tools.wmflabs.org/add-information/no_information.php
i’m not sure how much of a priority it is, or should be for wikisource. not sure if you must have PD license, merely machine readable. english wikipedia has the same condition. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 03:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Fwiw... I applied a bastardized version of Commons' licensetpl PD scheme to our core {{license}} template and it seems to do the trick when it comes to excluding any other [PD] license templates based on that core one ('Bastardized' because we can't exactly mirror Commons' approach to license template layouts since they've taken into account on the fly language translations as well as LTR vs RTL based languages while we are specifically concerned with LTR / EN).

If others can verify the addition "works" (Ex. File:400hans.djvu), I guess the next question is how many license-type of templates do we have that are based on the core {{License}} template BUT are not technically/directly of the PD vein/status? -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like these recent changes to templates over at Wikivoyage have solved about half the "problems" at the English Wikivoyage. I wonder if those fixes would work here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
As it that concerning to you, I have included the pertinent licence components into Template:Raw page scan. The template is applied to page scans of files in the public domain as the scans of the works are already hosted here or at Commons. We can continue to tidy them as we can. My check of the first 3k files showed that well over 90% were such files. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Some confusion about images processing

I was trying to make sense of the instructions on adding the metadata and frankly its more than confusing. Downloaded this image, trimmed, grayscaled, and re-titled it properly and when I uploaded it File:The octagonal court between the churches at Kal'at Sama'an, Syria.png The metadata was created. The images on the list should be processed anyways. Why bother with the suggested convoluted process to add the metadata?

Convoluted process? Just complete the template and you meet requirements. Our templates weren't (aren't fully?) up to the suggested specifications, and in lieu of that, the files were labelled to identify that, until the templates are fixed.

Related to this, is my processing this image yesterday, and then finding the identical image on the commons with a slightly different name File:Interior of Sta. Sophia, Constantinople (p10 of 1909historyofdec04gibbuoft.djvu).jpg. What are the rules for duplicate images??? — Ineuw talk 03:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

c:Commons:Deletion policy#Duplicates. As your file type is different, it is fine. And with regard to duplicates, I wouldn't overly fuss it, it will get worked out, and often it is me that is processing. The other of interest is probably c:Commons:Overwriting existing files — billinghurst sDrewth 04:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The fourteen images from the list have been cleaned and uploaded to the commons, categorized and stored in the c:Category:The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1909 edition). I will delete these images here.
  • It's a waste of effort to tag images which require offline cleanup and upload to the commons. Only images which are transferred directly from here need to use the metadata tag. The tag itself is incomplete and I added the image date.

[Collapsed Section] 


<div class="hproduct commons-file-information-table">
<table class="toccolours vevent" style="width: 100%;" cellpadding="4">

<!-- Description -->
<tr style="vertical-align: top">
<td id="fileinfotpl_desc" class="fileinfo-paramfield">{{int:wm-license-information-description}}<span class="summary fn" style="display:none">{{PAGENAME}}</span></td>
<td class="description">Gold medallion of Justinian I - From the The history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire; (1909-1914) by Edward Gibbon.</td>
</tr>

<!-- Source -->
<tr style="vertical-align: top">
<td id="fileinfotpl_src" class="fileinfo-paramfield">{{int:wm-license-information-source}}</td>
<td>[https://archive.org/details/1909historyofdec04gibbuoft Internet Archive]</td>
</tr>

<!-- Date -->
<tr style="vertical-align: top">
<td id="fileinfotpl_dt" class="fileinfo-paramfield">{{int:wm-license-information-date}}</td>
<td>1909</td>
</tr>

<!-- Author -->
<tr style="vertical-align: top">
<td id="fileinfotpl_aut" class="fileinfo-paramfield">{{int:wm-license-information-author}}</td>
<td>Unknown</td>
</tr>

</table>
</div>

{{PD-1923}}
@Ineuw: Are you complicating a discussion? If templates we use are adapted, then all the classification takes place quietly and painlessly. (problem solved) For items that need cleanup, they may or may not be tagged, however, our focus should be on cleaning and transferring to Commons, not putting tags on them here. If we want to make that bleeding obvious, we just state that in {{raw page scan}} with what is the purpose and how to comply. Please can we speak about solutions, rather than just problems. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't wish to complicate matters for anyone, but the information given was incomplete. In other words, if we download, clean and upload the images to the Commons (using the Upload wizard), the template above is of no use. That's where my confusion sets in. If the template is to be used to transfer images directly from Wikisource to the Commons, as some images may qualify for direct transfer, then that pig doesn't fly for me. As for the template I pasted above, I just didn't see how the Commons would accept images without a date. Rightly on wrongly, that's why I added it. As for the link to the {{Raw page scan}} thanks - for I have never seen that template before. — Ineuw talk 02:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I have been reading and hopefully learning from the above conversation. I think too much is better than too little. I also had forgotten about a program Ineuw had told me about and now I have installed that program. From it I have searched and learned some more information important to me. Kind regards to all, —Maury (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Metadata

How important is it in keeping the metadata of images when placing them on commons? I don't see where it is needed for an image and my program allows me to strip out all metadata. —Maury (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It is important, especially for the next person who downloads it. There are many images on the Commons that have a section displaying the metadata on the page. Please don't strip it. The previous discussion was all about metadata which in this case it's about identifying the image. — Ineuw talk 16:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
It was the metadata from the previous discussion that caused me to wonder specifically about the metadata in an image. I know it is shown on the page, along with camera orientation and more. I often have looked over images and their metadata including your images. I thank you for your reply and for the mention of you using DDG in the previous discussion. I installed the program and have been using it since you mentioned it in the above discussion. I also wish you could have continued that discussion. When you talk/write people learn. BTW, I knew about that Template Billinghurst mentioned. People learn from each other and thus silence is not always "golden". Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
it is important to model good archivist behavior. a good provenance is useful for future image curators. the problem with some joe’s blog with no metadata is that follow-on re-users don’t know what or how to reuse, limiting the utility. even bad metadata can be improved with scholarship. the broken image transfer process from wikipedia to commons has now caused a lot of rework. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 18:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Some of the images have a lot of metadata while others have very little metadata. I have looked at so many embedded within images but I don't recall much within Ineuw's images whereas mine contain even the name of the program which I had determined as mere advertising. Photos show a lot too as well as the camera used and more. It doesn't bother me either way other than being curious as to what might be important. I';; look back at Ineuw's images because all I recall at this moment was very little information. That imformation is also interesting to decode. One can also add metadata in images. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Two types of metadata are under discussion here
for us at enWS, the first are pertinent, and the second are interesting but not usually pertinent as we are usually not dealing with originals. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Meta RfCs on two new global groups

Hello all,

There are currently requests for comment open on meta to create two new global groups. The first is a group for members of the OTRS permissions queue, which would not contain any additional user rights. That proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group. The second is a group for Wikimedia Commons admins and OTRS agents to view deleted file pages through the 'viewdeletedfile' right on all wikis except those who opt-out. The second proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global file deletion review.

We would like to hear what you think on both proposals. Both are in English; if you wanted to translate them into your native language that would also be appreciated.

It is possible for individual projects to opt-out, so that users in those groups do not have any additional rights on those projects. To do this please start a local discussion, and if there is consensus you can request to opt-out of either or both at m:Stewards' noticeboard.

Thanks and regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-44

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

  • There was an issue with files from Commons on October 21. You could only see those with names between 140 and 159 characters by visiting Commons itself. [36]
  • There was a problem with cut and paste in VisualEditor in Firefox. It was fixed quickly. [37]
  • There was a problem with editing math in VisualEditor. It was fixed quickly. [38]

Software changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will now come to Wikipedia sites every Wednesday, instead of every Thursday. [39]
  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf5) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since October 23. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from October 28, and on all Wikipedias from October 29 (calendar).
  • VisualEditor now uses autovalues for templates if they are in TemplateData. [40] [41] [42]
  • VisualEditor's menu items now show their shortcuts beside them. [43]
  • VisualEditor now opens faster when you click "edit". [44]
  • The rules for plurals in translations changed in some languages. Interface translations are currently not being updated from translatewiki.net; this process will start again on November 6. [45]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

05:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2014-11&oldid=5144387"