Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2015-01

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 January 2015, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Announcements[edit]

User Research - sign-up to help out[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation's Design Research team, Abbey Ripstra and Daisy Chen, are looking for people to participate in research about editing. They want to talk with both experienced editors and new editors to better understand what you do, how you do it, what is difficult and what works well with editing tools. Currently, they're doing some hour-long research interviews over Google Hangouts. In the future, there will be other types of research programs, probably including a card sorting task to determine how editing tools and tasks could be organized to suit you best.

If you would like to hear about opportunities to participate in user-based research, please sign up here:
  https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_6R04ammTX8uoJFP
This is a small survey to fill out so the research team knows a little bit about your experience level and how to contact you to invite you to research. You can always opt out again, and signing up does not obligate you to participate.

—Nick Wilson (Quiddity), Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list

Proposals[edit]

BOT approval requests[edit]

User:Wikisource-bot[edit]

At my request, John Vandenberg is going to recreate the previous functions of user:JVbot/patrol whitelist in toollabs based wikisource-bot. I also plan to get some basic voluntary archiving available, predominantly for user pages. The bot will be using pywikibot. To do these functions, we seek the approval of the community to undertake some tests for evaluation. The bots would be persistant, and automated in that functionality. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ran some archiving runs using archivebot.py and some liitle issues with captcha they work fine. So not sure if anyone wishes to set up an archiving on their talk page, if they do, I can some more tests. I will set up some instructions on the bot user page (for the moment). Wikisource-bot (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I added it on my talk page. But I do not talk too much, so not too much to archive ...--Mpaa (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I have set the beast to run daily, now not sure whether our 'crats @Hesperian, @Zhaladshar: want to wait until @John Vandenberg: gets the patrol component going or not. Noting that component will just patrol, not specifically edit. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd like a few members of the community saying yay or nay about having this bot before I flag it. To get that started off, I'll support giving this bot the flag. One question: will it only be used for archiving or will it have expanded functionality in the future?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    @Zhaladshar: At the moment archiving and patrolling to takeover from the defunct JVBot (same script). I would hope that we can utilise this WMF account for additional tasks that the community needs run on an automated basis, without much (any?) intervention. More info about scope of existing scripts is at mw:Manual:Pywikibot/Scripts. I would see that any additional tasks will be requested here, and added to the scope of the bot with approval of the community. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As I am involved in pywikibot, if one notices something strange with edits done by this bot, I can assist. There is also the possibility to open tickets in bugzillaPhabricator (Product pywikibot)--Mpaa (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support – As interested in creating database reports -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Other discussions[edit]

Epub ebook download[edit]

Hi. I'm new here. I downloaded some articles (books) as epub, but I noticed that they don't have covers. Is there a way to automatically create a simple cover just with the title and author name?

Mr White (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Most of the works that resurrect are library editions where the covers are non-attractive, as the libraries have bound them. Depending on the works, in the past few years we have been better reproducing title pages and tables of contents that lead to more attractive presentations. Which works are you looking at? Otherwise, we may need to talk to @Tpt: to see what can be done by his tool to give that option. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
A photo of an Kobo ereader device showing the cover page of Something New by P. G. Wodehouse.
I thought that all epubs had basic coverpages like the one at right. Maybe it depends on which book is exported… which did you try? In general though it would be pretty cool if the epub cover page could be the titlepage has transcribed from the book. Don't know how easy it is to identify that text though.

Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 03:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That appears as the first page. A cover like that would be nice. I downloaded Agatha Christie's books and The Golden Man. Mr White (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I utilise EPubRead firefox extension and I get cover pages when I click the sidebar link. So I am not sure what you mean by a cover, well one that is separate/different. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I also get a cover with the epub exported for The Golden Man. Perhaps this is an issue with ereader compatibility? What device and/or software are you using, Mr White? Would you mind checking the same epubs on a different setup, to see where the problem might be? I know Kobos have a setting to turn the title page off, by the way; could that be the case with your device? — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 00:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I use Google Play Books on Android and on the web. Other books (uploaded or bought from the store) appear with cover. See: http://postimg.org/image/6u1mt29fr/ Mr White (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Index:The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, Volume I.pdf[edit]

Can someone check the copyright status on this? Archibald was still alive in 1955.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair dinkum SF. Would you mind paying attention to the copyright tags applied to works. Look at the tag applied, then come back and tell us how the date of death is relevant. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah fair enough. PD-US-Not renewed, and Archibald was in the US in 1927. This one's OK ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Every so often -[edit]

Every so often I see what appears to be works from Project Gutenburg here on Wikisource. Why does anyone need to take from Project Gutenberg, (other than it is easy), images or text or both images and text to promote Wikisource? Shame! I am strongly opposed to it. I have always thought that we are capable enough to create our own works. There is a feeling of pride and honor in that as opposed to a shame to taking (stealing?) someone's work from elsewhere. Am I mistaken? —Maury (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Preference versus scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Maury, Gutenburg does allow expressly that kind of use, as long as they are credited as the source. It's a quick-and-dirty method of getting a work into Wikisource. It has the advantages of (a) filling a gap in our coverage quickly, and (b) being easier for new editors to manage. I won't mention the disadvantages, as I expect you already know them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


I know that Gutenberg allows free use as long as their ownership? text remains attached. That is as good as Google watermarks and various universities. Since it is okay then okay, - but I personally dislike it being on Wikisource. A few works from Gutenberg can cause one to wonder how much work do we do here on Wikisource. If we produce 1 million books and among those are added 10 quality Gutenberg books an outsider who browses may think we build with other project's works - and would not know what percentage is our work.

I was reading billinghurst's remarks about epub books and tried his epubreader. I saw a book *somewhere* that we already have here along with others like it. I refer to

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Edgar_Wilson_Nye

and specifically to https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Nye%27s_History_of_the_USA.djvu.

I saw a version of A Comic History of the United States by by "Bill" Nye from Project Gutenberg. Now, I spent a lot of time with text and moreso with images on that same book. Several people took the time proofing the work, editing the work, and transcluding that work and for what when Project Gutenberg has a version pulled onto Wikisource? It negates our Wikisourcer's work does it not? We did not need to take from Project Gutenberg along with its mandatory retention of text. —Maury (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I don't follow you. We've got a sourced and proofread version of a text, then we don't include a Gutenberg text. There would be no reason to duplicate a text. We only have (or keep) Gutenberg texts when we have no sourced and transcluded copy of our own. When did you ever see a Gutenberg copy added after a Wikisourcer worked to transclude a text? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it was a link from the ereaderpub program I saw Billinghurst book of PG's book? I really don't know at this point. However, the book did belong to Project Gutenberg and I did the same one mentioned above without knowing what Gutenburg has. I never go to PG and I don't read there.—Maury (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Over time our culture has changed. Several years ago the focus was on getting up as many public domain texts as possible. Grabbing Project Gutenberg works was an effective and efficient way to achieve that, and was encouraged by the community. These days our focus is on reliable, validated, properly sourced texts; we see very little value in copy-paste jobs, and discourage grabbing stuff from PG. Maury I think nearly everyone agrees with you now, but it would be a mistake to judge the past by our present values. Hesperian 00:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well, I am still a beginner with lots of things. However, I was not judging anything by date (past or present) because even now I have not looked back at those dates. I am still (always) learning fellows and I thank you for your knowledge. With all due respect, —Maury (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

In a somewhat related note. I've been getting annoyed by a lot of text that are unsourced, no publication information etc... For example, Cur Deus Homo has the title and author but no other information. Was the text digitized by another source? Are there digital scans of it, and where? Or did the editor simply have an old copy of the book and digitized it the old fashioned way? I've seen this being done on a daily basis of users creating pages that aren't properly sourced, especially that relating to foreign material. At what point do we sacrifice quality over quantity? Also, at what point do we make it official policy? To allow users to go to a pages djvu file makes wikisource unique in it's verifiability of old text. At what point do we make it official policy for scanned material? What problems could occur with these considerations? I'm not looking for a debate, I would just like to hear user opinion on these matters. --Rochefoucauld (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Cur Deus Homo https://archive.org/details/curdeushomowhyg00ansegoog
@Rochefoucauld: I doubt that it will ever be a prerequisite to have a scan to go with a work, though it will always remain our preferred means, and the only means to proofread and validate an older work. To be a featured work, it will be close to the only means to achieve that status. We should always query an unsourced work and usually this is done during the patrol phase. In patrolling we challenge and request sources, and tag it and nag the contributor. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Any unsourced work should not be allowed. The person who brings a work to wikisource should provide that source and if not it should be removed. Nag the contributor, no, demand that the contributor provide the needed source materials. We must stay clean of any copyrighted works. —Maury (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
"Unsourced" and "copyrighted" are not synonymous. An unsourced work may still be in the public domain. It may also be famous and have an article in Wikipedia. Moreover, this is a volunteer service. No "demand" can be made here of anyone. Yes, the contribution may be removed, still, no "demand" can be made. There are plenty of unsourced works here, with original contributors now inactive. Instead of throwing a tantrum, objectors should be of a positive and constructive disposition and try to find sources for those works. If someone could add it, surely another one, if sufficiently laborious, can find a source in most cases. Hrishikes (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I know they are not the same. When I was writing about "unsourced" (I also provided a source for Cur Deus Homo ). When typing it also came to mind that copyrighted materials must not be allowed either. That is why I wrote "materials". No debate on my end about it. Discussion, yes, anything else - No. A "demand" can be made here on anything and anyone by our editors _voting_ if anything gets to far out-of-hand. Wikisource is democratic. Who is "throwing a tantrum"? Not I. Any person can be locked out of Wikisource by a majority vote. Yes, I know no older unsourced materials cannot be removed according to what Hesperian stated on the same. Just for the record, I do not get angry easily and especially not here on a computer. That would be silly. I don't get angry face to face either. I am old enough and capable enough to know what to do in any case. Luv ya bro, —Maury (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen a convincing argument to change our scope, though I respect that some would like it to be tougher. I am more in favour of a process to work with users to get sourced material, and to have a deletion process that reviews whether a work is within scope. As has happened previously where we get a sourced version of a work, we have deleted an unsourced version, and maybe what we are looking to do is maybe highlight by text additions to {{no source}} and as part of our conversation with contributors of unsourced works. New contributors who bring unsourced work have plenty of potential to have demonstrated that the having a source for a Wikisource work is equivalent to having a citation for a Wikipedia work. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Maury, I think one of our biggest challenges here is our very high barrier to entry:— you have to learn an awful lot of complex stuff before you can become very effective here. Many of us started off with unsourced works, got comfortable with how that part of the site works, then "graduated" to the complexities of DjVu files, index pages, the page namespace and page transclusion. If accepting unsourced works is the price we have to pay to make ourselves tolerably accessible to new contributors, then I'm glad to pay it. Hesperian 10:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I fine that no source maintenance is an acceptable means to handle this matter.(I did not know such template existed, thanks.) Probably the best way to handle it, so that we don't scare off new contributors. I know that wikipedia says that any work that is not sourced can be deleted. Usually this never happens unless the article is of popular interest. It is best that we refrain from doing this, as it is most likely counter intuitive to our project. Unless of course there are fidelity issues. Thanks for everyones insight to this matter. --Rochefoucauld (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Good people all - above the work Cur Deus Homo was mentioned as unsourced material. I found a source for that work - Cur Deus Homo https://archive.org/details/curdeushomowhyg00ansegoog - so what will be done with that work now? Will this source I found be applied to that work? There isn't much we cannot do working together. Respectfully, I am, —Maury (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    In this case, I would hope that the DjVu you found for Cur Deus Homo is suitably complete and is uploaded to Commons (if it is properly in public domain; IA sometimes makes mistakes). Then, I would hope that diligent editors proofread and validate the work, and the results are transcluded over the previous unsourced edition. That's not always how I think it should happen, though. Some of the older "unsourced" editions can have their sources tracked down, and some of them should remain alongside other editions. Some of them are well-formatted and cleaned up better than the old print copies. However, in this instance, the existing copy of Cur Deus Homo has minimal formatting besides being unsourced. There would be no reason to preserve it if we had a properly sourced edition to replace it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    I do not think those ideas are realistic. "Who ya gonna call?" [GhostBusters] I assume everyone works on their own projects or they aren't here on wikisource. —Maury (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    I've found that they can be. I'll sometimes find an abandoned and incomplete transcription that I happily jump in to work on. Sometimes I help another person get started on a project they want to do. There are also lots of lists people have made of cool books that someone ought to do. People here do find those lists and will find projects listed that they eagerly attack. I know that my own lists have spawned work from a couple of new contributors looking for a project, and I likewise have found books to work on myself listed by others. The community here may be a little loose, but there are some nice interconnections like that, where editors inspire each other to achieve. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Successful Validation Month[edit]

A typical WS proofreader

We have just completed this year's Validation Month. During the month 6071 pages were validated and 26 works were moved into the completed status. 36 editors worked on the books that were displayed on the Main Page and there were several more editors who validated pages from other works. We are still working to get a complete list of all Wikisourcerors who validated during the month.

The additions during the month bring our completed Indexes to a total of 1,566 and the total validated pages is 186,779. If we continue to validate at our normal rate (ca. 100 per day), we should reach 200,000 towards the middle of next year.

Thank you to everyone who took part in the month and also to those who kept the other aspects of our Community going at the same time. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Huzza! This is terrific; good to see some stats. Thanks to everyone who keeps this running! I love being able to amble along here to do just a few pages. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 23:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It all started with my Doomsday Book. -William. (On mouse over.)

I would like to know how many books have been downloaded & which are the most popular downloads. —Maury (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the mediawiki code editor's font-style and size?[edit]

The code editor of our personal javascript & CSS has a very interesting font style and size. How can I implement it for my textarea editing? — Ineuw talk 23:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

CodeEditor is an extension now installed by default. I guess you can browse the file tree for the .css modules handling the formatting but I'm not so sure its as simple as that - some that is based in ACE or GeSHi (like our LUA is really Scribunto) and again, may have quirks under the Wiki mark-up. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, all I was curious about is, if I could affect the #textarea1 font, with another monospace font other than Courier New. I am not sure if it can be done and my efforts were unsuccessful. If it's possible to do, and you have time, do you mind taking a look at my CSS page? — Ineuw talk 07:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah Wiki mark-up isn't going to like that but I suppose you can force [some] of the settings using !important; (already done & used correct anchor id).

The other thing to remember is, when in doubt, wiki mark-up will look to your editing prefs for a fallback font and that is usually set to 'the browser default'. Now most browsers set a default family and have fallback(s) as well -- Wiki mark-up might go through a bunch of font families before it decides what to render & when without any predictability. You might want to try some other fallback family in your preferences just to be able to usurp it in your .css is what I'm getting at in a nutshell. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Very helpful and a terrific explanation. Thank you. — Ineuw talk 07:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I have alternate editing fonts working in my stylesheet with this: body.action-edit #wpTextbox1, body.action-submit #wpTextbox1 { font-family:DPCustomMono2, monospace; font-size:10pt } I would’ve thought your "Liberation Mono" would work, but maybe the font is called something a bit different internally? By the way, I recommend the DPCustomMono2 font for proofreading! :-) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 09:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
@Samwilson: Sorry for the late reply but I really wanted to put this matter to rest, so I tried in Windows 7 using three browsers, Firefox 34.0, which is my working browser, Opera 25, and Internet Explorer 11. In all three browsers the #Textarea1 font was controlled by the browser, regardless what was specified in the CSS. The next order of font style control is the Preference/Edit setting of "Browser default", "Monospace font", "Sans-serif" or "Serif". For example, if the Wiki Preference/Edit was set to Sans-serif but the browser monospace font was Liberation mono, then the font-style changed to the proportional font specified in the browser. The only font settings I could change in the Common.css was the line height and the font-size. So, GO3 is right again. — Ineuw talk 06:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
That's very strange. I’ve got it working fine under Windows 7 FF 33 and Ubuntu FF 34. Must be something else at work. :( — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 06:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Samwilson: Could kindly upload a screen shot of the #Textarea1 to Wikisource? Since email contact through WS does not provide for attachments and I would very much like to see it. — Ineuw talk 19:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Please don't bother to upload an image, finally managed to locate the font and download it. — Ineuw talk 20:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Samwilson: Final note. You were right about the css font specifications. My earlier mistake was that I selected Liberation Mono in the browser, so, I couldn't tell from which setting affected the text area. Thanks for your directions. — Ineuw talk 21:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Display Middle Age text's capital U as V[edit]

What's the best way to display a Middle Age era font that display what we now call capital U as it was, which looks like V? Therefore, if people copy paste it and turn it into plain text, it will still be "u", not "v". I tried looking for a font that will do it, but I couldn't find any. Bennylin (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If the source uses a "V", then that's what should appear in the text. We don't modernize spellings or alter texts like that; we reproduce the text as it was printed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
French WS implemented a way to switch between original and modernized spelling (e.g. ſ/s). I haven’t looked into how they do it, but maybe it would be a nice feature to have? See fr:Gargantua/Édition Juste, 1535 as an example. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 19:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
That's not a difference in spelling; that's simply different orthography. It's like a change in font from ɑ to a. The symbol ſ was how "s" was rendered in the middle of words in handwriting. For some texts, we choose to preserve that orthography, but most search engines recognize ſ as an s. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I’m unclear as to the difference between spelling and orthography (they both translate to the same term in French). In any case, I still think an easy way to switch between ſ and s, uu and w, þ and th, etc. would be useful. While it is important to keep a faithful transcription of older texts, a character modernization option could be very useful for legibility. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 02:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
orthography = conventional spelling system of a language. —Maury (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
A rough distinction is: orthography is how the letters look when printed, while spelling is which letters are used to make up a word. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Sadly no.

c.f. w:orthography vs w:typography: I think you will find you are describing the latter, not the former. 58.168.74.59 05:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, poorly worded. I meant the general shape of the printed letters rather than serif vs san-serif, &c. i.e. a capital P vs a capital Π. They are the same letter in spelling, but not the same in orthography. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Beeswax, you were correct. The IP was linking to encyclopedia entries, and not to definitions. See wikt:orthography to note that there are multiple meanings of the word orthography, and that the WP article treats only one of those definitions, because Wikipedia articles concern ideas, not words. Hence, the article on w:Plant covers only green living organisms, and not the manufacturing sort. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
So it's technically impossible to do that? Bennylin (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
It could be possible, for example if you create a template similar to what {{ls}} does. However, I think the point is that you should just use V. Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
"ſ" is another way to write s; I'm not a huge fan of bothering with it at all since it conveys so little information over just writing an s and letting those few who might care look at the scans. þ doesn't appear in modern English basically at all (see w:þ), and Middle English has much worse things then that. U/V as positional variants of each other is complex, but is certainly not something that should be handled at the font level.
I'm all for modernized spelling editions of our works; they're useful and relatively noncontroversial. I don't see much point in work at such a low-level as stressing about a few characters.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
My opinion on the matter depends on the work. When transcribing a philosophical treatise by John Locke, I see no point in worrying about ſ because almost no one will care. But when transcribing a copy of Shakespeare's First Folio, I fret over every possible point of presentation because people going to that work may very well care. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Search engine visibility of wikisource content[edit]

I posted the same question on the multilingual wikisource, but it looks like there is nobody active on the local scriptorium, so I am reposting here.

Hi, I am wondering why wikisource content is not at the top of search results. I have this experience from my language search results but I doubt there will be much difference in different language search results. Why does major search engine after input of exact name of a book, that is fully published on wikisource gives instead of a link to the books text here on wikisource (which I would expect since I didnt state "where to buy exact name of the book or something else) some other results such as bookshops to buy it and articles on the author etc. I know that exact algorhytms for ranking pages are known only to employees of the search engine companies, but I wonder if there is any information publicly known about this "problem". Thanks --Wesalius (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Many books we digitize come from other top sources such as
  • Google books
  • Internet Archive
  • Both sites have huge traffic and have hosted the content much long than we've had it.
  • They use OCR, so all content is transcribed(poorly) but enough to show up on search results.
This goes for many other book sellers too, they have previews of the book that show up in search results.
2. Google tracks book sites on price, availability, and review ratings, right on search results pages. (wikisource currently fails to adhere to these guidelines.)
  • This enables sites to:
  • Attract potential buyers while they are searching for items to buy on Google.
  • Control product information and maintain the accuracy and freshness of product information, so customers find the relevant, current items they're looking for.
Source: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/146750?hl=en

--Rochefoucauld (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I went and did some reading at Google, then Schema.org, then played with the JSON-LD version, failed, asked some people who could explain. The response is 1) mediawiki disallows the use of <script ...> for security reasons (JSON-LD), and 2) disallows the addition of microformats (the inline components). So basically at this point "checkmate". I have been a little pushy and emailed wikitech-l, and cc'd wikisource-l to see if they can better address the matter and assist to get better search results per the Google webmaster instruction. One could see that we could template into {{header}} for works, and {{author}} for authors either the microformat, or the JSON methodology, or pull the data from wikidata, or some better method, it is just being recommended on the best means, and being allowed to do so. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing it up for me. Its too bad it is beyond our possibilities (if I understood it correctly) to make the content here more search engine visible. Compared to archive.org it is stored in a way more readable way and availability compared with google books, well that depends a lot on country you are viewing the content from :/ I know that google is not a public serviec, but a for-profit company, so I cant really blame them to prioritize content, that can be monetized. --Wesalius (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Validated works' category browser[edit]

I’ve had a little crack at compiling a basic single-page category-tree browser for works that are in Category:Index Validated (well, the ones that have corresponding mainspace pages, which is maybe not all of them). I mainly wanted an easy way to find books to read on my ereader, but it makes for an interesting way to browse the structure of things. If anyone’s interested, it’s at: http://static.samwilson.id.au/2014/ws/ (warning: in a completely ridiculous move on my part, it's a single 12.6MB HTML file, so I don't know, maybe save it offline or something... I’ll get around to making it more ajaxy if I can be bothered!). :) Oh, and the data I used is from 26 November (in case it looks out of date; it is). — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 02:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Sanity Check[edit]

This work: https://archive.org/details/castlekirbymuxlo00peerrich is a 1917 Guidebook published under HMSO Auspices.

It's written by am author that died in 1952 , seemingly in an official capacity?

Would it be reasonable to apply Crown Copyright rules to this? - If so the work is copyright expired and can be put on Wikisource.

Opinions sought. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

On the front cover of the work it says "Crown Copyright Reserved" so that is what it will be. Presumably written in the course of employment. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Which as it was written seemingly in 1917 . It can be put on Commons :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Copyright Act, 1956 (United Kingdom)/Part 6#53billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Index:Kirby Muxloe Castle near Leicester (1917).djvu and the file needs 2 duplicate pages removed, and the images uploaded, other than that I can have this proofread very quickly :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Kirby Muxloe Castle near Leicester- Hows that for efficency :) ? No images though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-50[edit]

17:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Index:US Senate Report on CIA Detention Interrogation Program.pdf[edit]

Will continue later, but any hints? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Forth Bridge (1890)[edit]

I think it would be possible to finish Index:Forth Bridge (1890).djvu by Christmas with a little help on validation, formatting and tables. It's already had some great input from others and the lion's share of it is complete. RandomPerson137 (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: may be worth slipping into the PotM remnants. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Help with drop initail image[edit]

1. "P




Is there any way I can get the [1. "] that is before the drop initial Image to be in the top left corner as per the source at la:Pagina:DELITIAE SAPIENTIAE DE AMORE CONJUGIALI.djvu/2? I've used "expand template tool" to get it as it is since there is no template for it at the Latin wikisource, so I don't have a clue what the code I'm using means and how to use it. I'm new to wiki and would appreciate any help. Thanks.

Here done this way:

" 1.P

 

Hrishikes (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't help you much with that problem, but it appears that this is entirely in Latin, and would be better suited for the Latin Wikisource.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Umm, Zhaladshar, it is on the Latin Wikisource. Look at the link. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If you could specify the page where you need this to be done, and precisely what it is you need, we might be able to help. You've shown us an example where it is done, so you could copy the code and paste it in to wherever it is you are doing whatever it is you are doing. The details of what happens would depend on what it is you're trying to accomplish and where you're trying to do it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

See if this is OK for you. I watched at the HTML code ("view source") generated here and tried to replicate it there.--Mpaa (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes Mpaa that's perfect. Thank you very much! --Jpez (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Condor title page[edit]

I've created a title page for The Condor, and you can see it at Page:Condor5(2).djvu/1. Before I go ahead and use it on all ~100 issues, does anyone have any criticism or suggestions for how to do it better? Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Instead of a standard hyphen, I suggest using an en-dash ( – ) between the month names. Otherwise, it looks fine to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks jolly good. I think the illustrator's signature is part of the illustration and should have been left there rather than extracted and rendered as text. Hesperian 03:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-51[edit]

16:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:PD-UN[edit]

<striking original to put in something more neutral>

Apparently there was a policy change at Commons concerning PD-UN licensed materials Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-UN., back in June.

Would someone here be willing to review what's potentially affected here if anything? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikilivres down?[edit]

Maybe I haven't looked hard enough, but I am just wondering what became of the site (not French Wikibooks): all the links are dead at the moment, earlier there was a notice that payment for the domain name was overdue, and it's definitely worrisome that a legal Canadian site for PD-old-50 books would go down so suddenly. Mahir256 (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be up now. Maybe someone forgot to pay the bills? :) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 05:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Still down, as far as I can see. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It looks like it was a DNS issue, which is fixed now and the fix will finish propagating sometime soon I would imagine. This was posted on the Wikilivres Community Portal:

Recent outage.

For those of you who have been wondering why this site was off line for more than a week, a little explanation order. The payment for hosting or for the domain was never in question. The "unpaid" account was for nameservers, the service that allows the site to be found on the internet. Since our last transfer of hosts this was be done by DNSever, a South Korean company. The choice of that company was a technical one, beyond my technical understanding. Initially DNSever provided a free service. More recently they decided to commercialize their service. The amount of money in question was trivial, less than $1.00 per month. What was unacceptable was terms of service that included compliance with United States copyright laws and having those terms subject to Korean law. All this necessitated a change of nameserver, and this is now being handled by Interglider.

—Eclecticology 10:57, 19 December 2014 (PST)

It seems it's down again at this moment.— Ineuw talk 06:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikilivres is back. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Index:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 24.djvu[edit]

Which volumes exist on archive.org?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The display options of the main namespace are in the garage for repair?[edit]

I was just wondering. Also, I am curious what is the purpose of the new option of hiding the the page layout of the Index page? — Ineuw talk 06:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has changed re: Display Options. If it's gone rogue on you, you most likely need to do the full-blown cache clearing thingy thanks to something in the last core update conflicting with the 'cookied' version. Same thing happened to me a couple of days after the upgrade before this last one fwiw.
As for the collapsing thing on Index: pages - just me tinkering. When more people notice it, I guess we will go from there (keep or kill it). -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-52[edit]

16:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Multiple translations with different title[edit]

Three with the Moon and his Shadow, Drinking Alone in the Moonlight, and Drinking Alone by Moonlight are three different translations of the same Chinese poem, originally titled zh:月下獨酌四首. My understanding is that there should be a disambiguation page that links to the three, and that page would be linked from each version and from the other-language Wikisources or Wikidata. Is there any protocol about how that should be titled? Is there a policy page that addresses issues like this? Rigadoun (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A {{versions}} page not a disambiguation page. I don't think there is a policy page. You would have to take guidance from the template documentation together with pertinent examples such as The Iliad. Hesperian 05:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Why would you use a {{versions}} page and not a {{translations}} page? My understanding is that, since you are disambiguating translations, you would use the latter? (for example, see Veni Creator Spiritus (Maurus)). Help:Disambiguation seems to agree with you, but I don't understand why. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, I just noticed that User:Chris55 asked the same question in 2012 on Help talk:Disambiguation with no response. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Because the translations are considered different versions of the same work. So you would want the different translation pages inside versions.--Rochefoucauld (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
So what's the point of a {{translations}} page? From what I understand, it is a versions page, specifically for works where all English versions are translations of an original. If we want "the different translation pages inside versions", by which I understand "the different translations listed on a versions page", then there will never be a need or use for translations pages, so we shouldn't have that as an option.
In my opinion, it would make a lot more sense to use a {{translations}} page to list different translations of a work. For example: Dies Irae is a {{translations}} page, which lists translations by Coles, Crashaw, Dillon, Dix, Irons, Johnson, and Slosson. Then, you would use a {{versions}} page to list versions of a particular translation—for example, Dies Irae (Irons) lists different verions of Irons' translation: one published in 1902 in The Seven Great Hymns of the Mediaeval Church, and another published in 1912 in the English Missal. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry apparently I wasn't very clear; translation pages are used for works that are translated by wiki users. For example, a page like Translation:Catullus 30 was translated by wikisource users. For instance Three with the Moon and his Shadow(E. P. Dutton & Co., New York, 1922)., Drinking Alone in the Moonlight(translated by Amy Lowell published in Fir-flower Tablets by, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1921), Drinking Alone by Moonlight( published by Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1919).) are works that have been published in the united states and are out of copyright. If we did not use the current method there would be no separation between works translated from wikisource users and works translated by respected translators and publishers. Published translators, translate the entire work themselves and as a result tend to be more persistent in their translation throughout the work. They also use a certain set of standards and rules. It's important that we separate the two.--Rochefoucauld (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The distinction is made by having Wikisource original translations placed in the "Translations:" namespace. We use {{translations}} pages for all manner of translated works, including those that have been published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I think a {{translations}} page is more appropriate here than a {{versions}} page; when I replied earlier I momentarily forgot about {{translations}}. Hesperian 23:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I made the page Yue xia du zhuo, under the transliterated title (along the lines of using the Latin titles of these hymns for the translation pages). Thanks for the help and suggestions, everyone. Rouchefoucauld, I think you're mixing up the {{translations}} template with the Translation namespace. I agree with the others it makes sense to use translation instead of versions here. Rigadoun (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-01[edit]

16:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

What to do with a work that has no source scan, when a sourced copy is added[edit]

I realise this question is often asked, usually with respect to particular works (e.g. #Books without Indexes?). Since I have a feeling this question will come up for me over and over again, I would like to make sure I understand the right way to go about this in general. When I add a text to Wikisource, transcluded from a DJVU file as usual, and I discover that this text already exists on Wikisource but has no scan attached to it, what is the preferred way to determine whether to delete the unsourced one or to disambiguate between the two? Should there be a separate discussion on the Scriptorium for each work?

Right now I am looking at The New Method of Evaluation as Applied to Pi (unsourced) vs. The New Method of Evaluation as Applied to π (sourced). Other examples I have worked on recently include Dies Irae (Irons, 1902) (sourced) vs Dies Irae (Irons, 1912) (unsourced), which I disambiguated, as well as Aeterni Patris (Leo XIII), the original of which I unilaterally deleted as I was pretty sure the translation was copyvio as well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Case by case by discussion at Wikisource:Proposed deletions as there so many variables we decided to treat by the standard process. What we will basically do is look for variations, and see if we can give some provenance to the unsourced version. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
See The American for an example. We have long had an unsourced edition copied from Project Gutenberg. Recently we completed a sourced version: The Novels and Tales of Henry James/Volume 2/The American. The sourced version uses the "New York Edition" text, whereas textual analysis of the unsource version indicated that it was uses the "first American book edition" text. Since the sourced version is not quite a replacement for the unsourced version, the latter was kept but moved to The American (unsourced edition). Should we ever obtain a sourced transcription of the "first American book text", then I would expect the unsourced edition to be deleted. Hesperian 12:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree with all of the above, but to clarify further: In the case of the Lewis Carroll article, a replacement / redirect would probably be best. The two articles appear identical, aside from formatting and font choice, and a sourced edition is much preferred to one that is unsourced. Duplicate copies of works are only valuable if they are different editions, different translations, etc. Identical works are not worth keeping when one of them is unsourced. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of the phrase"pursuit of happiness" in the preamble U.S.Constitution?[edit]

What is the literal definition of ''pursuit of happiness in the U.S.Constution preamble? cliffg7hotmail.com Cliff Grannum