Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2017-04

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 April 2017, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Announcements[edit]

Proposals[edit]

Bot approval requests[edit]

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Other discussions[edit]

Author's names[edit]

Do we have a policy for how to name Author pages when the author changes name? The most common would be when a woman author marries, but I have come across a man who changed his name by adoption. I understand WP now lists articles about women by their maiden name … I am looking at Author:Emily Gosse whose WP article is w:Emily Bowes. Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikisource:Naming conventions We have generally taken through to the last name (married) and use redirects for the variations. It is an inexact science. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Linguistic Report 1961[edit]

appear to be a Somali government typescript.[1] would people be amenable to uploading here, since commons is talking about crown copyright? Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The reference is to [2], and I see no reason not to at least let that run its course.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be agreement that it is okay to upload it to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Dotted summary row[edit]

I was investigating to see if I could use {{Dotted summary row}}, or at least the underlying CSS classes, on a page. I think the related {{Dotted summary row no image}} is too heavyweight (the nested tables didn't work). The template is being used in a few places, but it looks like the corresponding CSS classes are not part of MediaWiki.css (if they ever were), and so the intended display is not happening. The Italian Wikisource has them (s:it:MediaWiki:Common.css). Seems like either the template should be removed, or the CSS classes added. Did they exist at one point? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Geez, how many dotted row templates do we have? I think we can add them to the common CSS, but is it possible to merge this template into {{Dotted TOC row}} or something instead? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I would think that we would be better to await the new implementation of styles in templates. We should be looking to avoid burgeoning common.css with occasional formatting. Every component added to common.js, and common.css adds load time. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I think {{Dotted summary row no image}} takes the same approach as {{Dotted TOC line}}, but the TOC template is not quite as flexible. I think both assume a basic two-column table (though the TOC template has parameters for TOC-specific situations which is not my case), and any deviation (like I had) meant they were unusable. The same might be true of the Dotted summary row template, which is a completely different approach to the problem, but the CSS classes defined in it would be much more flexible as other templates could be defined which use them for other situations. If CSS is going to be allowed in templates though, then great -- that may be enough. A possible problem though is the style uses a "url()" component, to a very specific Commons image, which is stripped out by MediaWiki's security sanitizer if you try to use it inline. If the template CSS style feature will also strip that out, then we also can't use it, and it would have to go into common.css . The no-image approach may also be made more flexible... the code is dense enough I didn't want to spend time figuring out if it was possible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-14[edit]

17:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

New Wiki Project page[edit]

I have created a new Wiki Project page

It is a copy of WS:EB1911 text with modifications -- PBS (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

300,000 pages now validated[edit]

At 21:22 on 5 April, 2017 @AnotherAnonymous: set Page:Essays of Francis Bacon 1908 Scott.djvu/125 to validated, which was the 300,000th page to be validated. Interestingly, I made a similar announcement on 4 April, 2016 for the 250,000th page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections[edit]

Please accept our apologies for cross-posting this message. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

Wikimedia-logo black.svg

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections.

The Board of Trustees (Board) is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. More information about this role can be found on Meta-Wiki. Please read the letter from the Board of Trustees calling for candidates.

The candidacy submission phase will last from April 7 (00:00 UTC) to April 20 (23:59 UTC).

We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates from April 7 to April 20. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki.

Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.

The goal of this process is to fill the three community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.

The full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.

  • April 7 (00:00 UTC) – April 20 (23:59 UTC) – Board nominations
  • April 7 – April 20 – Board candidates questions submission period
  • April 21 – April 30 – Board candidates answer questions
  • May 1 – May 14 – Board voting period
  • May 15–19 – Board vote checking
  • May 20 – Board result announcement goal

In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:

  • Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
    • There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.
  • Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson (Ombuds)
    • One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.

Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.

More information on this year's elections can be found on Meta-Wiki. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the election talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections(at)wikimedia.org.

On behalf of the Election Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 03:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Yankee in Canada (1866) Thoreau[edit]

Surely there is no need to disambiguate this title. Suggest moving to A Yankee in Canada or A Yankee in Canada, with Anti-Slavery and Reform Papers. BethNaught (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with you. I will defer to someone with greater knowledge which is preferable. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
It will need to be disambiguated, because this volume exists in several copies, including copies in two multi-volume collections of Thoreau's writings that people have begun transcribing here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. BethNaught (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Am I correct to understand this is a specific edition of a specific anthology which nearly shares the name with one of its constituent parts unless we rename it to A Yankee in Canada, with Anti-Slavery and Reform Papers, and that the specific anthology arrangement with its title may have multiple editions? Including as part of a yet larger anthology? Or is it just the constituent parts are included in a larger anthology? Excursions (1863) Thoreau may have the same issue also.
To what degree do we preemptively disambiguate things? I can see that it is a problem to move texts if there are external web links to internal chapters or what have you. On the other hand it sounds very difficult to do 'right', certainly a great deal of our main namespace isn't there. Prosody (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The edition in question is a specific edition of a collection of papers, originally published individually, the "Yankee in Canada" then collected and published, then this edition published as a book with additional papers, which subsequently was published at least three more times as the same collected volume in a larger collected set.
Yes, preëmptive disambiguation is a Good Thing, and yes, it is often difficult to get right without doing research. I've spent the better part of the past two days doing research on published editions of Seneca's tragedies (and other works with the same titles) just to be sure I'm disambiguating them correctly. I did similar research for the tragedies and comedies from ancient Greece. These works were a bit more challenging because the titles are short (usually naming a single character or group), and were often recycled or re-interpreted by later Roman and French dramatists, so the titles pop up over and over. "A Yankee in Canada" is less likely to have additional writers using the same title, but for a popular writer like Thoreau, there will almost certainly be multiple editions of his works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-15[edit]

18:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Additional snippets[edit]

mw:Wikistats 2.0 Design Project/RequestforFeedback/Round2

  • Preparing to deploy sister wiki search results display - posted notice at multiple wiki's village pumps (phabricator:T162064#3161941)

Read-only mode for 20 to 30 minutes on 19 April and 3 May[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Searchability of Indexes not-proofread[edit]

According to Category:Index Not-Proofread, we currently have about 6500 Indexes needing to be proofread. How might someone who comes along wanting to proofread a work on gardening, for example, access a list of Indexes available needing to be proofread on that particular subject? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

OCR text is not searchable. But if the word gardening is present in the index name or any created page of that index, that would be searchable, e.g. Index:Australian enquiry book of household and general information.djvu, Index:Gardening for Ladies and Companion to the Flower-Garden.djvu, Index:Boots and Saddles.djvu. All such works would not be on gardening; may only contain a passing reference to the topic; this will need to be manually checked. Hrishikes (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add top-level categories to Indexes, such as can be found at Library of Congress Classification? Or would this be opening up a can of worms? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Some sort of categorisation is desirable, as given in Portal:Index. But it would be a huge work. Hrishikes (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
if you had an OCLC number, you could import the categories from library of congress. (although they have problems as well). Slowking4SvG's revenge 17:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment categorising index pages is going to be a lot of work for temporary benefit. [Noting that wee are pretty garbage at categorising main namespace works for presentation and they have long term benefit for readers (which are our bulk).] How about we look to define specifically you would be looking to achieve (what output might you be expecting?), ie. from index ns: works, looking to show works that are not proofread by an author? by a keyword? by a year of publication? We have numerous means to isolate and to identify Index: ns, so it is the innovation of getting something prepared, and then getting potential editors to find what we have prepared. Do we even know the numbers around potential transcribers, or how to interest them in the next steps? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, for finding a suitable work to proofread, index categorisation is not essential. An editor would not give a lot of time and labour for any random work. He/she will first find out the name of a suitable work by launching a general search in Google etc., or proceed from a pre-acquired knowledge. Then the editor will see whether it is available here, and if available, whether proofread or otherwise. If not available, then the editor can add it here. This is the general procedure by which I work, and it is likely that, other editors also choose the work first and then find it here or add it and start proofreading. Index category is helpful and desirable, but not essential. Hrishikes (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Forgive my unstructured thought process... Wikipedia's Citation Hunt tool came to mind, and prompted my question. I too, generally speaking, search for works with "pre-acquired knowledge", but I presume it is not the same for all. The end I am looking at is to chip away at the 6500 works needing to be proofread. I could work on making sure that project links are available on author pages for those works; that would take care of one aspect...
Question: How does one separate (list) categories using this search engine? For example, for Project:Wikisource, I type in "Political science" in Categories, and a result appears. But if I type in "Index Not-Proofread, Political science" or "Index Not-Proofread; Political science", no results show. How can multiple cats be listed to generate results? Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: For Petscan: write one category, click enter, write another category. If you want the work to be present in both categories, choose "Subset". If you want works of either category, choose "Union". Hrishikes (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Great. Thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: We are going to need a little bit of curation, it comes down to how much, and where. A number of ways to proceed. 1) have a wikiproject where you can load and list works; 2) utilise the keyword feature of Special:IndexPages to present a subset of works; 3) other pre-prepared searches that present a set of works, be it through petscan, or an internally constructed set of criteria; 4) We look to better populate our works at Wikidata, and run searches and categorisation from there to point at our works here. It is my belief that the best way to get people to find works, especially theme-based is a well-constructed WikipProject especially as that is something that we can advertise/promote/push. The DNB project worked as it was coordinated and promoted. Our use of PotM has clearly been one of our most successful, again coordinated and promoted.

And an aside about good petscan searches, note that you can use the interwiki of petscan: with your search number. Check my little list on my user page. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Would you be averse to my adding top-level categories—derived from the list at Library of Congress Classification—to Index pages? Would it even be possible to add a parameter (if that's the right word) to the Index template where a user can select a Category from a drop-down list of top-level LC subjects (there are 'only' 20)? That way, when an Index is created, Users can opt to add Category info as they do other template parameters (and this way, Categories entered would be uniform and case-correct).
I have created a sandbox with a table that links to Petscan searches for specific categories based on LC Classification. "Political Science" is the only subject/category that generates a result at the moment. As far as a WikiProject is concerned, it could consist in part of such a table linking to works by category as used in my sandbox. Please let me know if any of this is desirable. I am not averse to adding [single, top-level] Categories to 6500 Indexes if the community is not against my doing so. Of course, others may have better insight into the realistic aspect of doing so. My insight into/knowledge about such things is often limited. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
If we wanted to categorize Index pages, we could modify MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template to automatically include categories based on their 'main subject' (P921) and 'genre' (P136) properties on Wikidata (or any others that are desired). For example, Gardening for Ladies and Companion to the Flower-Garden (d:Q29354298) has subject 'gardening' and this could be turned into Category:Works about about gardening that require proofreading or similar. These categories would then of course need to be added to parent categories, which would be a bit of a pain if not done by bot. Sam Wilson 03:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Instead of using categories (serves completed works better), can we not use the portal system, especially as this solution has been hiding in plain sight on the main page? If there are no objections, I could pick away at adding the "To Be Proofread" and the "To Be Validated" works to applicable portals, using the {{small scan link}} (Transcription project) to indicate which are available to be worked on. @Londonjackbooks: For your example The American Democrat: does Portal:Political theory work? Humbug26 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
@Humbug26: Would your idea not take more manual maintenance and oversight? If I understand correctly, one would manually add (from the existing 6500) a to-be-proofread work to a list at a Portal; once said work is proofread, it would need to be manually taken off the to-be-proofread list at the Portal. When what I was proposing, once said work is fully proofread, the work would automatically be removed from to-be-proofread PetScan search results, as that category would automatically disappear once the work is promoted to to-be-validated (i.e., less manual work/oversight). As for the Political theory portal recommendation, my thinking only went so far as to the use of categories (and I thought to keep those categories top-level), so unless some other system is adopted than one similar to what I have proposed, I don't have an answer for you at this moment. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The last week of the 1st cycle of Wikimedia strategy conversation[edit]

Hi, I'm Szymon, a MetaWiki Strategy Coordinator. 3 weeks ago, we invited you to join a broad discussion about Wikimedia's future role in the world. The discussion is divided into 3 cycles, and the first one ends on April, 15. So far, Wikimedians have been discussing mainly about technological improvements, multilingual support, friendly environment, cooperation with other organizations and networks.

I'm pinging a few recently active admins. I hope you'll help me with passing along the news, maybe even join the discussion. @Beeswaxcandle, @EncycloPetey, @Ineuw, @Beleg Tâl, @Charles Matthews:.

Looking forward to your input. Thank you in advance! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I have found the question "What role do we want to play in the world in 2030?" too remote. I can see the prospects for integration between Wikimedia sites over the next, say, five years very interesting. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
this is a prompt for the brainstorming which is more fun, than the five year implementation plan and resource loading. but yeah, if you are action-oriented, it is all a little woolly headed. and some folks say "execution beats strategy every day". Slowking4SvG's revenge 13:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I added my overall take to Wikisource talk:Wikimedia Strategy 2017. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
that’s good. now is the time to get your feedback in while they are listening. they have been responsive to our wish lists. Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Five Black Lives[edit]

I've been trying to find a scan of Five Black Lives: the autobiographies of Venture Smith, James Mars, William Grimes, the Rev. G. W. Offley, James L. Smith (1855), which includes the second edition of Life of William Grimes, the Runaway Slave, the first narrative of an American ex-slave.

However, I cannot find it at Hathi Trust or the Internet Archive, and the Google Books copy [12] seems to think it's still under copyright (!) so BUB won't touch it.

Can someone find a copy? Or does someone have contact with the person who runs the Book Uploader Bot? This work can't possibly still be under copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure about the copyright date? I see Google's pub date states 1855, but info from a Worldcat search (scroll toward end of results page) details that of the five narratives, four of them are dated after 1855: Wm. Grimes' narrative is dated 1855, but the other narratives are dated (chronologically) 1860, 1864, 1881 & 1897. I tried addall.com used book search for 1855 copies, as well as ebay... but no luck. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I know for certain only the date for the William Grimes autobiography edition. That date is given at the UNC library copy of the first edition. With a match at google.books, I assume that date is correct, but do not know the publication history and can't say for the other included works or for the collection.
If we can find any copy of William Grimes' autobiography, that would be a forward step. We are sorely lacking at Wikisource when it comes to 19th-century works by African-American authors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll keep looking for Grimes' autobiography... I found more confirmation that it is unlikely that Five Black Lives -- as a collection -- was published in 1855. It is listed as a 1st edition being published by Wesleyan University Press, [1971] in several search results. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Individual narratives[edit]

  1. Venture Smith @ Hathi trust
  2. James Mars @ Hathi trust
  3. G. W. Offley @ Hathi trust
  4. James L. Smith @ IA

Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The story of w:Charles Ball is present here, however: Index:Fifty Years in Chains, or the Life of an American Slave.djvu. The story of Grimes is available for online reading: http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/grimes25/grimes25.html Hrishikes (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
the compilation appears to be copyright 1971 [13] ; OCLC 2680663 - we could organize a project to start the originals, would make a good effort for black history month. Slowking4SvG's revenge 23:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
That's a good idea, but collecting African-American biographies might be a bigger collaboration than we could accomplish in a single month. It might even make for a suitable community collaboration to follow on sometime after Thoreau. I envision Thoreau continuing as our Community Collaboration until the end of July (when we celebrate his 200th birthday), then following with a shorter collaboration for someone from England (I have a person in mind). But then starting around December, or early next year, we then could collect African-American biographies. It would be great timing too, since this February will be the 200th birthday of Frederick Douglass. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikimania 2017 in Montréal[edit]

Wikimania 2017

This year, Wikimania is happening in Montréal! You want to give us a hand? We need YOU as a volunteer!

Contact Antoine2711 at abeaubien@wikimedia.ca.

Come make a difference with a great team of passionate Wiki people.

--Antoine2711 (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Works/editions and authority control parameters[edit]

I am seeing in Category:Pages using authority control with parameters the use of items that are book-related, rather than edition specific, eg. OCLC, and VIAF. I am not certain that this is particularly kosher, and seeking opinion on whether they should be removed or not. Do people see that they actually add value? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm divided on the issue. On the one hand, we want edition-specific information. But all too often, I can't find any edition specific links at VIAF or even LoC for the editions I'm seeking. And the LoC will sometimes have copy specific links rather than edition-specific ones, which is of no value to us at all since their copies seldom have scans available. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
It means that we are needing to manage that data locally, as we should not be pushing that book-level data into Wikidata for our editions. It also means that we are tracking its addition locally, which seems pointless if it is just indicative data, rather than something of value. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
We can't keep misguided bot operators from transferring data inappropriately. Even when all the data is correct, I've seen bot operators or well-meaning editors mis-add the data to items, then argue and get all huffy when I try to explain how it's supposed to be done. If Wikidata were able to do their end consistently, and if we had a way to pull information and links from work-level items on Wikidata, whenever appropriate, then I think it would cease to be an issue. Unfortunately, Wikidata is a mess when it comes to distinguishing works and editions, or in tracking languages of works, and bots and new editors keep muddying the water.
Also, VIAF is in flux, with many works having multiple ID values, and I can almost never find edition information in VIAF. So, you have to know how to navigate "up" Wikidata in Wikidata in order to find book information. Further, we have no tools for "crawling" up the links in Wikidata from an edition to a work, and even if we had that, there is still no distinction at Wikidata between edition (in the same language) and translation. Until Wikidata can handle these and related issues, I don't see the problem that you've raised going away. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
we are going to have to lead the way about structuring bibliographic metadata. could you write up a problem statement; and proposed paths forward, and missing process bits. how would we curate the worldcat or OCLC to incorporate edition information? if we wait for wikidata and VIAF, we will get a "solution" we will not like. if we raise the issues at wikidata, maybe we can get some buy-in. Slowking4SvG's revenge 03:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly just today I found an OCLC link that stated an edition, so maybe there is a lack of consistency and the mess is just universal. Rather than hit my head against the wall, maybe we just brute force the data, and take our whipping later. We just manage with less than perfect data and fix it all into the future. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
What is the 'blue-sky' desire for {{authority control}}? Is it that it displays a 'work' ID if there isn't an 'edition' one? Because that isn't too hard to do. I mean, not too hard to set up the linkage to use Wikidata data… the adding of the IDs to the right item on WD is another matter, but at least on our side things would stay clean. I don't really see the point in adding work-IDs to editions here (where there's no edition ID to be had); it'd be just as much work to add them at Wikidata, and doing so would have wider-ranging benefit. (Although, I agree that there's a world of bibliographic mess out there and that we're probably not going to end up with perfection!) Sam Wilson 06:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Sam, I do like the thought of cascading the the authorities. If data not on the edition, then choose the work. The neat thing about that is that here it is a coded response to the data selection, not encoded data here. The only thing that we need to do is to confirm that we want each authority that we display to cascade from work to edition; then fix the data. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Yeah, it shouldn't been too hard to add to Module:Authority control. I'll start writing some tests for the existing functionality. Would we want it to display any differently when it shows a work-level ID? Alternatively, we could show two sections in the authority control area, with the 2nd being for the work (might make it clearer?). Sam Wilson 01:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
┌──────┘
I wouldn't particularly wouldn't want to overly change/fork the module itself as ours does (did?) match enWPs. If we could wrap it that if the edition link fails to produce data that we then call the work (but I am not the coder so you tell us). Bit of push and pull whether we identify it separately, or pull the same field. If my first answer effects the approach, then maybe it is just simpler to align in showing separately. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, good point. Let's add it to the nascent Module:Edition, and it doesn't even need to do the complicated thing of knowing about all the different IDs; we can just ask Wikidata what an edition (and then its work) has. I'll get a sandbox and tests set up and we can experiment. Sound like a plan? We've got a ticket phab:T159104 for this sort of thing at the Hackathon in Vienna too; I'll work on this there as well. Sam Wilson 07:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
the problem is - most book metadata does not differentiate between editions. they glom all the editions together in one item. this means that there is the prospect of cleaning up all the metadata on the internet. we are going to have to make it easier to "check the edition before upload", but will have no help from anywhere else. it is not the first time that wikimedia is leading by example on metadata. Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. I think that summarizes the situation well. And while we can lead the way, each individual can tackle only a small portion of the problem. I have been trying to get the situation in hand for Greek drama, and have started expanding to some other Greek poets and Roman drama, but it is a mountain to deal with, especially since the task involves knowing the structure and quirks of several databases (GND, BnF), in addition to the issues on Wikidata and the various Wikisources. Never mind that doing this right universally also means working in several languages.
But even doing all that, I will have only cleaned up the situation for about 43 plays and a single set of 50 poems by a single author when I have finally done the group of works that I have selected to clean up. We really need an easier way to manage the creation, correlation, and correction of the data involved, and that's the gist of my proposal for Wikimedia strategy. If anyone here would like to add comments to that thread at Meta, expounding on some aspect of this issue, it would help clarify the situation and promote the discussion for all concerned. This is a big issue with many facets. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The strategy discussion. The Cycle 2 will start on May 5[edit]

The first cycle of the Wikimedia movement strategy process recently concluded. During that period, we were discussing the main directions for the Wikimedia movement over the next 15 years. There are more than 1500 summary statements collected from the various communities, but unfortunately, just several from your local discussion. The strategy facilitators and many volunteers have summarized the discussions of the previous month. A quantitative analysis of the statements will be posted on Meta for translation this week, alongside the report from the Berlin conference.

The second cycle will begin soon. It's set to begin on May 5 and run until May 31. During that period, you will be invited to dive into the main topics that emerged in the first cycle, discuss what they mean, which ones are the most important and why, and what their practical implications are. This work will be informed and complemented by research involving new voices that haven’t traditionally been included in strategy discussions, like readers, partners, and experts. Together, we will begin to make sense of all this information and organize it into a meaningful guiding document, which we will all collectively refine during the third and last cycle in June−July.

We want to help your community to be more engaged with the discussions in the next cycle. Now, we are looking for volunteers who could

  • tell us where to announce the start of the Cycle 2, and how to do that, so we could be sure the majority of your community is informed and has a chance to feel committed, and
  • facilitate the Cycle 2 discussions here, on Wikisource.

We are looking forward to your feedback!

Base (WMF) and SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Index:Bibliografia Pratese, compilata per un da Prato.djvu[edit]

Non-english work?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and just delete it, because the creator of the Index page within minutes created the page at it:Index:Bibliografia Pratese, compilata per un da Prato.djvu and has started proofing it there, so apparently they created it here by accident.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI: PDF thumbnail rendering problems[edit]

There is a problem regarding PDF file images and thumbnails failing to render, which is being discussed at WS:Scriptorium/Help#Problems with File:Special 301 Report 2014.pdf. I have also notified the devs at Phabricator task T164045. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Now recorded as being resolved. Please purge the file using the link from the Index: page to push out the rubbishy thumbnails. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Recommended default change in search preferences[edit]

I have put text into MediaWiki:Search-summary that recommends to users to change their default setting for search to the most advanced preference (the subpage setting was discussed at an earlier time.) This mediawiki: ns page is a component of Special:Search and by default is empty in WMF cofiguration. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Also the search box isn't very user friendly for new people here when it comes to searching for a particular subject, namely it won't display portals by default because it only searches content pages. Not very helpful for someone who comes here and probably doesn't even know that portals exist. Jpez (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jpez: I think that it was our choice to not have portal: ns as "content", and we initially settled on main, author, index and page, then added Translation when we had that created. It was ages ago, and I don't remember the detail. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah ok, but I can't imagine why though. Do you remember the reason?Jpez (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Not exactly, probably with the Portal: ns being under utilised at the time. Hmm, it even looks like in 2013 that I proposed Add portal ns: to be a default search to include Portal: and we did nothing about it. You can see that we have various bitsy conversation though maybe not an holistic. "default search" archives of WS:S

We probably should just resurrect the 2013 conversation and confirm it, and then submit a phabricator ticket. (Hint hint submit a proposal!) — billinghurst sDrewth 00:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist issues anyone?[edit]

For me for the past twelve hours, I am having display issues for my Watchlist. I get a blank screen (enWS only) and no error messages in my console. Can someone please confirm that their watchlist is working here at enWS, and especially confirm if they are using firefox. [my attempts to solve the issue will have to wait a while] Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I do get the note
The character encoding of the HTML document was not declared. The document will render with garbled text in some browser configurations if the document contains characters from outside the US-ASCII range. The character encoding of the page must be declared in the document or in the transfer protocol.
and I don't believe that I have made any changes to anything in that time. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Not to fuss, I have got it working by cleaning out the list through Special:EditWatchlist/raw. I will add it back later to find out what has changed. It was a category, not sure which, that will definitely have to wait. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I have identified that having Category:Speedy deletion requests in my watchlist breaks the display of Special:Watchlist. Can anyone please confirm whether it is a more universal problem, or just for me. To note that you have to set OFF in your watchlist preferences
Hide categorization of pages
billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I tried just now; added the cat to my watchlist and turned off "hide cats", but I still do not have this issue in Firefox or Vivaldi/Chromium. However, I noticed a few people having watchlist trouble at w:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) so I suspect there's something bigger at play. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Noting three temporary means to resolve
  • Stop watching categories, ie. turn on Hide categorization of pages in watchlist preferences
  • Turn off Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent in watchlist preferences
  • temporarily remove Category:Speedy deletion requests (or other offending categories) via Special:EditWatchlist/raw

billinghurst sDrewth 06:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about the {{FI}} and {{FIS}} templates[edit]

Does any know where the font size is specified in these templates? I've looked but found nothing, even though the captions are reduced to about 85% font-size. — Ineuw talk 00:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

94%? It comes from the class and is stored in MediaWiki:Dynimg.cssbillinghurst sDrewth 03:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, much appreciated. At least I now understand "class" as it applies to this object. — Ineuw talk 14:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Problems with page loading in the Page: namespace[edit]

Is anyone else having problems with incomplete loading of pages in the Page: namespace? Most of the time I'm not getting a toolbar above the edit window, the action tabs along the top are in the raw order, the template scripts aren't loading, and selecting a new status doesn't generate an automatic edit summary. I've tried changing the skin and using a different browser, but to no avail. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Happening for me too, especially the action tabs. Some JS scripts are failing to run somewhere. The toolbar thing happens a lot for me though. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, also just discovered that I'm not getting the symbol insertion lists at the bottom of the screen either. This was happening Thursday evening my time, but I just put it down to the live streaming going on elsewhere in the house. However, Thursday evening = new version of software. Looking at the list of changes for 1.29/wmf.21, I see there was a change to the ProofreadPage extension—something about dropping OIA-PMH support (whatever that is). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
If it is a rendering issue, sometimes forcing with ctrl-f5 can resolve the issue. w:OAI-PMH does not seem relevant. We get/got our software updates on Tuesday. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
ctrl-f5 didn't do anything. Nor has closing and restarting. It's also happening on my other computer logged in and logged out, so it's not just my scripts. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Got the following error in the Firefox developer tools' JS console when the issue occurs:
TypeError: mw.util is undefined TypeError: mw.util is undefined
Stack trace:
[object Object]  load.php:176:53
        logError https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:176:53
        handler https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:154:832
        fire https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:45:104
        fireWith https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:46:431
        fire https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:46:474
        track https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:154:614
        runScript/< https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:161:301
        fire https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:45:104
        add https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:45:656
        always https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:46:865
        runScript https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:160:944
        checkCssHandles https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:161:678
        execute https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:162:384
        implement https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:168:670
        <anonymous> https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:73:2381
Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
If you use ...?safemode=1 do you get the same error message? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Gut feel is that we are going to need to poke it into phabricator and get someone like Krinkle to have a look, it will most likely have ResourceLoader implications and something here is out of date. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: Phabricator request to fix load.php. I am seeing various requests around the wikis about putting dependencies into gadgets for mw.util. As this is not gadget stuff the fix will need to be upstream. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC) See below maybe it is locally fixable and we just need the right console/bug reports.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have made an edit to how the gadget nopinserter is loaded, and that should remove some noise, though I don't see in your above output which component was spitting chips. It will likely be one of the gadgets that you use. From the console, click on the link (load.php or index.php) and in the debugger you should get an indication of the script that is hosed. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Whatever it was that you did, seems to have done the trick for me. I've opened several pages in a row (yesterday and today) and they've all loaded happily. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Tertiary source citation warning not relevant[edit]

Wikisource, like all wikis using CiteThisPage, displays a warning at the top of each citation page:

IMPORTANT NOTE: Most educators and professionals do not consider it appropriate to use tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information—citing an encyclopedia as an important reference in footnotes or bibliographies may result in censure or a failing grade. Wikipedia articles should be used for background information, as a reference for correct terminology and search terms, and as a starting point for further research.

(eg. https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CiteThisPage&page=Executive_Order_13377&id=2024305)

This warning is not relevant for Wikisource, which provides primary sources, not tertiary sources. The warning should be removed. This was previously filed at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T162599 and then referred here.

Sondra.kinsey (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually Wikisource contains primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Where did you see this notice on our site? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
yeah where do i go to turn the notices off, also the "You are editing in the main namespace. This page should include a "header" template." warning. they are a useless speedbump. Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
task T162599 - you know i do present this issue at libraries, but "may result in censure or a failing grade" - really? it’s all rather patronizing. you also have: "Please remember to check your manual of style, standards guide or instructor's guidelines for the exact syntax to suit your needs. For more detailed advice, see Citing Wikipedia." that seems to me to be to be enough (if we had a citing wikisource page). can we get a consensus to edit the page? i nominate deleting the "important warning" and adding all the tl;dr to the citing wikisource page, which interested people can read.Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that most useful way to progress is to put specific text forward for the community to agree upon. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
ok suggested language here MediaWiki talk:Citethispage-content. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Charles Matthews: With your Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData-hat on. I would love to see whether cite this page could look to have a means to use Wikidata, or could use WD, AND if that is a yes, that we could also look to have a means to identify where data is missing at WD from the citation here. At the moment one has to go to WD and run manual checks to know whether information has been transferred. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Ideally I would love to see a template at somewhere like enWP that someone can just do an arbitrary call to a WD item, and a use like {{cite book|arbitrary=Qnnnnnn}} fully populates a template. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I've put the issue to some folk who will know more than I do. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposing (really) inactive bot rights removals[edit]

The following bots are not operational and have not been so for over three years, and their users are not active at enWikisource. I propose that the bot rights be removed with the reason of no longer required/redundant/inactive. BrandeisBot (talkcontribs) Cswikisource-bot (talkcontribs) InductiveBot (talkcontribs) Mjbot (talkcontribs) Pathosbot (talkcontribs) SKbot (talkcontribs) Xenophon (bot) (talkcontribs) Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support proposal for all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I've removed bot flags from all of these bots.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — Mpaa (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)