Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2017-06

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created on 01 June 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]

Index:The life and times of King Edward VII by Whates, Harry Richard 2.pdf[edit]

This volume needs to have the Hathi Trust notice page stripped from the front. Ideally the second page of the existing file would be replaced with a photo of the series cover (available from volume 1). The first page notice needs to be stripped because the odd-numbered pages are appeared on even file pages, and vice versa. However, note that this is a PDF file, and the other four volumes are DJVU format. -- (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. @EncycloPetey, you would need to check the pages that have already been transcribed. Ciridae (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ciridae: Thanks! I have moved and corrected all previously existing pages, to set them in the correct locations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Transcribing a biographical dictionary of printers[edit]

My colleagues at the Bodleian tell me that there are three or four volumes which are used heavily in book research — these books play as central a role in their field as Grove does for musicology — but there is no official electronic version, just scraps of transcriptions on different researchers' hard drives. I've been turning them into Wikisourcerors and together we're gradually transcribing one of the books at Index:Plomer Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers 1907.djvu. If anyone wants to help this collaboration and support research into historical books, please jump in and transcribe a page. Any help gratefully received! MartinPoulter (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

i see you are not doing hanging indent, might want to make a note on index talk. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes putting hanging indent can be a PITA so often without any benefit as in such works as it is not needed when transcluding. If that is the case here, we can just stick class = "leftoutdent" into the header section. We can also stick the class in the main ns so not having to fuss with opening and closing indents. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@MartinPoulter: there is also Index:A dictionary of printers and printing.djvu from the 1830s. Please do list this work on Wikisource:WikiProject Biographical dictionaries. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@MartinPoulter: Can I also suggest that we put the section names into appropriate case for proper nouns, as that will help your transclusion. It means that you can match the subpage name with the section name so you can transclude more easily with something like {{#tag:pages||index={{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}.djvu|from=|to=|fromsection={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|tosection={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}}}{{DEFAULTSORT:{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}}}}
I have set up {{PDBP lkpl}} (internal links where q.v. is used) and {{PDBP link}}. Prior to transcluding you are going to need to work out what title you want for the work as I have guessed at "Plomer's Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers" though you may have a better idea. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with billinghurst's description of hanging indent as "a PITA so often without any benefit" so I'd prefer to avoid it, but if there's a low-effort way to apply it to all the transcluded pages, or any way to make the formatting of transcluded pages less repetitive, then great. Huge thanks for creating the templates and for your other work on the transcription. I hadn't realised SUBPAGENAME could be used that way: that's brilliant, and I'll change my section names in the transcription. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links about texts[edit]

There doesn't seem to be a policy specifically about external links, so I'm curious to see the community's view on external links not to texts but to resources about texts. I realise it's not the point of Wikisource to be a guide to the web, and any external links have to be justified in terms of a benefit to the reader. Linking is probably best done by incorporating links from Wikidata or by putting parameters in a site-specific template. That said, there are links to external research or education resources which would be useful to some readers of a text.

Case in point: the Eighteenth Century Poetry Archive not only has the text of 1500 poems, but various tools for analysing each poem's structure and meaning, e.g. [1]. This is an open access resource and, being hosted by the Bodleian Libraries, a long-term project. If someone systematically made links from transcribed poems to this source, maybe via a custom template, would that be seen as a positive contribution?

As another idea, what about linking to the current Grove Music Online articles from articles in the Wikisource transcription of the 1900 Grove? The current edition is a subscription resource, so links benefit fewer readers than an open access resource. Then again, they benefit some readers with no disadvantage to others. I'm asking this as the Wikimedian In Residence at the University of Oxford and thinking about how to encourage academic projects to contribute to Wikisource. We're looking at sharing text, but sharing links might be a starting point for some projects, so long as these are welcome. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links are generally frowned upon within the text, but if you want to link to external resources from the notes section of the header, or from the Talk page, that should be fine. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Is the poetry archive linked with schemes like VAIF for the authors? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
We have allowed links from a work talk page where there is componentry about the edition; and we would use the parameter edition = yes in the header. We do allow links from an author page to externally hosted works, where they are no on-site, so that is an option. I don't see benefit in having a link to the top of a general poetry site. If we are talking about analysis of a work, that would usually be in the "Works about ..." section of the author page, if many in a specific sub-heading. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
It sounds to me like an opportunity to set up a "course" on the subject at Wikiversity. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Thanks. To be clear, I'm proposing links from the foot of a transcription, not from within the text. @ShakespeareFan00: The poetry archive has its own identifiers, but uses English Short Title Catalogue citation numbers for the editions of books from which the poems are taken. @Billinghurst: I'm not proposing to link author pages to "the top of a general poetry site", but to put a link at the foot of specific works to a page that gives further scholarly information about that specific poem. The linked information is about the poem, not the author, so it wouldn't go on the author profile. In the case of Grove, it seems like putting a link to the current Grove article about an author in the "Works about..." section of the Author profile is okay. However, most of the topics of Grove aren't authors: I'm more interested in linking from the foot of a 1900 Grove article to the current Grove article about the same topic. @EncycloPetey: Interesting idea, but I fear it could lead there being a link from a Wikisource poem or biography to "Educational resources about this text on Wikiversity" and then that link leading to just another external link. So the user gets the same information; it just takes them longer. Wikiversity is awesome in theory but I find it has more navigational infrastructure than content. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
It is a little tricky as our reproductions are editions, not necessarily the works, and we see enough variation in editions. So if you truly think that it belongs, I would could see it existing within the authority control template and putting the standard link data into WD, not so much managing it here as a data field. Alternatively we can add information to the talk page, and link within the header to additional data on the talk page, and that could include formalised templates with external links. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-23[edit]

19:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Old toolbar retirement[edit]

Noting the commentary about the old toolbar's proposed retirement (above ... 2006 wikitext editor). I know that it is going to be problematic to me as I prefer the simpler old style where it is easy customise — either to cull or to add buttons. We should look at what customisations we have individually undertaken, and which we need to migrate to the new schema, especially as I was pretty useless at converting and gave up through repeated failure. Pain that they have only provided three weeks notice of the retirement, for something that has presumably been in the pipes for a while. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I've done a bit with the betatoolbar (I wonder if they'll change its name now?!) and could probably help if you have any particular scripts that need migration (e.g. I did a User:Samwilson/PageCleanUp.js button, and things in various extensions). Sam Wilson 06:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I loathe the newer toolbars with passion—they take up too much space on my limited screen and are ugly. They have also never behaved well with the eminiently sensible MonoBook skin. If there is a toolbar that behaves well and is limited in height to the size of the old toolbar, then I'll be interested. Otherwise I'm really not sure that continuing to contribute will be practical for me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Is it possible to keep choices, and use either one or the other when we need them? --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: That feedback needs to be added to the phabricator ticket above into detail about how the extended toolbar (new one) is less useful. It would seem we are needing to have someone gadgetise the toolbar, and best we can maybe hope for is a delay in the removal. And that needs lots of dissent, and good argument. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you care for most? What are you concerned with? Take part in the strategy discussion[edit]

Strategy Graphic.pdf
The World in 2030 - Presentation for movement strategy discussions.pdf

Hi!

The more involved we are, the more ideas or wishes concerning the future of Wikipedia we have. We want to change some things, but other things we prefer not to be changed at all, and we can explain why for each of those things. At some point, we don’t think only about the recent changes or personal lists of to-dos, but also about, for example, groups of users, the software, institutional partners, money!, etc. When we discuss with other Wikimedians, we want them to have at least similar priorities that we have. Otherwise, we feel we wasted our time and efforts.

We need to find something that could be predictable, clear and certain to everybody. A uniting idea that would be more nearby and close to the every day’s reality than the Vision (every human can freely share in the sum of all knowledge).

But people contribute to Wikimedia in so many ways. The thing that should unite us should also fit various needs of editors and affiliates from many countries. What’s more, we can’t ignore other groups of people who care about or depend on us, like regular donors or “power readers” (people who read our content a lot and often).

That’s why we’re running the movement strategy discussions. Between 2019 and 2034, the main idea that results from these discussions, considered by Wikimedians as the most important one, will influence big and small decisions, e.g. in grant programs, or software development. For example: are we more educational, or more IT-like?

We want to take into account everybody’s voice. Really: each community is important. We don’t want you to be or even feel excluded.

Please, if you are interested in the Wikimedia strategy, follow these steps:

  • Have a look at this page. There are drafts of 5 potential candidates for the strategic priority. You can comment on the talk pages.
  • The last day for the discussion is June, 12. Later, we’ll read all your comments, and shortly after that, there’ll be another round of discussions (see the timeline). I will give you more details before that happens.
  • If you have any questions, ask me. If you ask me here, mention me please.

Friendly disclaimer: this message wasn't written by a bot, a bureaucrat or a person who doesn't care about your project. I’m a Polish Wikipedian, and I hope my words are straightforward enough. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Management of new User right pagequality-admin[edit]

The latest software update added a new user right pagequality-admin. By default this enables Administrators to put a page into the "validated" status at any point from creation, including pages they have proofread themselves. This ability would be most useful when recreating previously validated pages. I can also see benefits when doing a Match and Split on an older work that is already at pagequality 100%. Additionally, I have occasionally accidentally demoted a page when working on it and "undoing" the demotion doesn't work. However, RC already shows that Wikisourcerors with the Admin tools are selecting Validated and then changing to Proofread, so leaving it as it is isn't a good thing.

Proposed solutions:

  1. The right is removed from the Administrator role and not enabled elsewhere;
  2. The right is added to the list that the 'Crats can assign on a time-limited basis, and anyone needing to use it for a particular project/task can request it from the 'Crats with an explanation of why they need it;
  3. The right is added to the list that Administrators can self assign on a time-limited basis (like the flood flag is currently);
  4. Something else I haven't thought of.

If option 3 is chosen, I recommend that we set up a page for Admins to record their use of the right with details of the project/task it was used on. This is for transparency of process. We need to be able to assure the general reader of our hosted works that Validated means that at least two different proofreaders have gone through the text on that page and it is in as near a perfect state as we can make it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I was initially inclined to option 1, but reflection overnight brings me to option 3. When we select someone to be an Admin we trust them with various other tools, we should be able to trust them to make the right calls on when to use this right as well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 3 for me, w/o the burden of documenting. If it appears in the "User rights log" (like in Special:User rights) it will be enough for me.— Mpaa (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I also think option 3 makes the most sense, it's the way we handle other tools like the bot user flag. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Option #3 seems like the best approach to me too. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for option 3. This should be for moving/recreating already validated pages. Should not be used for match and split, those pages can still contain errors and will need separate validation. Anyway, parameters of option 3 should be more discussed, I think. A separate page for detailing the use of this right is not much practicable, IMO. The style of the flood flag should be sufficient, but there should be a reason column (drop-down menu) while assigning this right and that should be mandatory. Hrishikes (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think admins should be trusted to use this without permission for maintenance purposes. An edit summary would suffice and the history of the page can always be checked for abuse of this right. The only problem I can see is accidental use of it. Maybe a small popup can be implemented for this when admins validate a page that hasn't been proofread. (eg. This page hasn't been proofread, are you sure you'd like to validate it? etc) Jpez (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jpez: This is not a matter of trust, this is a matter of capability. No user, however trusted, can have the capability of 100% true-to-scan and rule-complying proofreading. Some errors are likely to creep in or remain, which the validator will correct later. Two pairs of eyes are always better than one for detecting errors. So this privilege should not be used for general proofreading, it should be restricted to special and specific purposes only, IMHO. Hrishikes (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: I think it is a matter of trust, as admins are carefully selected and trustworthy users, so they should also be trusted to be able to validate pages for, I stress maintenance purposes, and of course not for validating any work they please. If not I do believe there is a trust issue, if admins aren't capable of following the simple rule of proofread first and validate second. Anyway I'm just saying, for conversations sake. Extra protection isn't a bad thing, and marking a page as validated is a significant thing. So much so that in my opinion I think pages should be proofread twice by different individuals and then validated by a third.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Adminship to this point of time has not been primarily about our personal proofreading (cap)ability, it has been our ability to other acts on site, and to fix things according to site rules. Hanging this decision on administrators as jumping a validation would be a change in our approach.
    1. noting that scenario 2) and 3) can both occur as assigning rights to 'crats and admins are separated matters. They are not mutually exclusive. That would be the content and scope of any site request phabricator ticket.
    2. To its implementation, that is a rules-based decision made and controlled locally, and separate from the right. If we are to implement this there are rules that clearly need to be in place. Time-based addition; not to be applied by bots, nor users in bot mode. Others have suggested others.
    3. If implemented there is a clear need for this to be mechanistic resolution to identified requirements, not a user's individual decision where they are self-assessing that this will be okay. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hshrikes: - I would strongly suggest something else as well, namely when proofreading, it's not possible to mark something as validated (for normal users) if you've made changes to the text. I've sometimes not advanced pages to validated, even when the changes has been relatively minor 2-3 character, punctuation or formatting changes. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please turn off / remove this option from my account as I find it unnecessary and confusing. The concept of the same editor validating their own work defeats the purpose of extra eyes to notice something overlooked. Why not simplify the concept by eliminating validation altogether? The complexity of rules of this proposal defies logic and implies the additional burden of maintenance. For what purpose? Everyone here returns to their own edits and makes minor corrections. Naturally, I am the exception. — Ineuw talk 20:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Index and pages move (Thoreau)[edit]

Could someone with a bot move the following Index, the associated DjVu File on Commons, and all its created Pages according the the name change:

Index:The writings of Henry David Thoreau volume 2.djvu --> Index:Writings of Henry David Thoreau (1906) v2.djvu

There was more than one edition of The Writings of Henry David Thoreau published, and this is volume 2 of the 1906 edition. This change will therefore be needed for clear disambiguation. Also, Volumes 5, 6, and 7 exist already on both Commons and Wikisource, and they utilize the replacement naming convention. This change will therefore make the naming in the series consistent as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done leaving redirects in index: and file: nss, not in page: ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Sheet music and pdf export[edit]

I've noticed sheet music we transcribe with lilypond isn't rendered at all when you try to export it as pdf. For an example try to export The Child's Own Music Book/Baa, Baa, Black Sheep as pdf. Jpez (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jpez: PDF generation is widely considered problematic via the current internal tool, and to which you can express that commentary at the talk page of mw:Reading/Web/PDF Functionality. Did you also try the WSexport tool for PDF creation to see if that was any better? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I also tried the export tool and the same thing happened, it came up blank. I'll raise the issue at wikimedia and see what happens. For now you can click on the musical score and download it as an image but the resolution is low. From what I know lilypond has built in pdf functionality, maybe it can be intergrated. Jpez (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jpez: 1) It sounds like a phabricator: ticket to address; 2) it sounds like mentioning in the PDF replacement project that Extension:Score and PDF generation seem to be at odds. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Billinghurst: I've posted a comment here and I will also will create a phabricator ticket when I have the time. I've never used phabricator before so I will need to look into it. Jpez (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
There is an old phab ticket for this: phab:T65589. Feel free to comment there. You can log in with your WMF credentials. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence as public domain or should we delete it here ?[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
moved to Wikisource:Copyright discussionsBeleg Tâl (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

thumb|8 June 2017 Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was added here to Wikisource.

I had originally added the file to Wikimedia Commons.

They nominated it for deletion there and they don't think it is public domain, commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:8 June 2017 Comey Statement for the Record Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.pdf.

Is public testimony in an open public hearing read out loud as such before the United States Congress public domain?

If so, should we keep the document in written format here at Wikisource , and if not, should we delete it from Wikisource?

Thanks for your helpful advice ! Sagecandor (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm moving this discussion to Wikisource:Copyright discussionsBeleg Tâl (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-24[edit]

15:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Books with no chapters[edit]

There are some old books, especially poems in my language (Persian), in which the texts of sonnets start as soon as the last one finishes. There are no chapters and you can just distinguish the start of a sonnet by a title or a graphical mark (like this one). Is there any way to tell the wiki's software how to distinguish the end of a sonnet so during the transclusion process it could find out where to end and where to start? --Yousef (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This is done using labelled section transclusion, Help:Transclusion#How to transclude single-section. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! --Yousef (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
yes, if there are no chapters / sections or a printed index, you may have to create one from scholarship for ease of use. i.e. A Woman of the Century where i had to find an index on an advert not in book. Slowking4SvG's revenge 18:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
And as you are manufacturing subpages, we would often utilise {{auxiliary Table of Contents}} on the front page of the work to display what we have created. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hymns for the coronation of Edward VII[edit]

Who here has a strong interest and experience in hymns? There is a short collection of Hymns for the Coronation of His Majesty King Edward VII (1902) (transcription project) that would be easier for someone experienced with setting sheet music. It's a short collection, at only 8 pages, buth the composers and hymn writers will need to be checked individually first, and the DjVu file might have to be transferred here if the works are not yet in PD in the UK. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd be down for researching the attributions. I don't have the patience for LilyPond though. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Lilypond for hymns is no problem for me. If someone looks after the rest of the text on the pages, I'm happy to do the scores. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
ok, i’ll set them up for you. how did you do this? [20] outstanding. i have an interest in spirituals, and sheet music [21] but gave up. Slowking4SvG's revenge 23:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: Practice and plenty of it. I've been setting scores here and for a choir for about 4 years now. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Everything's done but the scores (and validation). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
if we have a willing volunteer for scores, we should set up a job queue, so we can proof all but score, and put "missing score" on it. could be a wikisource selling factor with some library GLAMs. Slowking4SvG's revenge 19:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: what do you mean by that? We already do things that way, see Category:Texts with missing musical scores. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
yes, i was hoping elevate the list, to get in the monthly proofread queue, or with a contest, or a portal. it is a specialized capability that other transcription sites cannot do. we should celebrate, maybe push some to featured status. Slowking4SvG's revenge 19:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
It's pretty much me, although Jpez is doing some score work as well. I have limited time to devote to scores amidst everything else I'm involved in here and in RL. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Add portals to default search[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
consensus reached for addition of portal to defaultsearch — billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Portals aren't displayed by default when making a simple search with the search box. This most likely makes it impossible for them to be found by users who are unaware of how to search for them. I propose that we add portals to the default search results if possible. Jpez (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support: I've forgotten the number of times I've had to do an advanced search to look in the Portal namespace. Ciridae (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support no brainer —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I didn't realize this wasn't already the case. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jpez: now deployed. Thanks to Framawikibillinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Billinghurst: I had a go but I'm not getting any hits. For example if I do a search for "sheet music" I expect Portal:Sheet music to be at the top of the search. I tried other portals also with the same results. Maybe it needs time to take effect? Jpez (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jpez: which means that you are not on default search. You have been able to change and save your search preference, and you will need to do that and add yours via the advanced search clicking "Remember selection for future searches". — billinghurst sDrewth 12:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Multiple pages on one page[edit]

Is here any way to split a pdf page which contains two pages of the original file on itself? This is the file I’m talking about. It’s on Persian Wikisource. --Yousef (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yousef, I use scantailor to do this. Jpez (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
i’ve been known to crop and rearrange, in a publisher program, and then save as pdf, to maintain the page order & pagination of the pdf. Slowking4SvG's revenge 19:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Having H: properly mapped to Help: namespace[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Consensus achieved that we have additional local mapping of H: to Help: as namespacealias — billinghurst sDrewth 04:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

At the moment we use a shortcut like H:NS to be a shortcut to Help:Namespaces; this is actually a kludge that shows up in the main namespace. We should be having H: registered as a namespacealias to Help: as we have done for WS: to Wikisource:. As a practical example of this when looking at the prefixindex, note the namespace dropdown as an indicator of where you are in these examples Special:PrefixIndex/H: and Special:PrefixIndex/WS:, and also note the abbreviated listing

Technical speaking: We should be having H: set as a namespace alias for ns:12/Help: and HT: set as a namespace alias for ns:13/Help talk: (see current definitions in API call. This is a little fix, and does not adversely affect the wiki. It corrects an oversight that we made when we started better using the help namespace, though incorrectly implemented the shortcuts. [I am mostly asking the non-tech members of the community to trust me that this is needed.]

I request that the community approves this proposal and we will get a site request phabricator to resolve, and the sysadmins to run some scripts that will fix the incorrect namespace components. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Ciridae (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg SupportSpangineer (háblame) 22:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Sam Wilson 07:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
H: is now an alias for Help:. I have deleted those redirects that we had and are now superfluous. I have thanked those who contributed, via the ticket. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Validation before proofreading[edit]

The validation option is coming up during page creation. Experimentally I have validated this page. New bug? Hrishikes (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Not just for new pages. I was proofreading earlier and found that the system was offering me the option to validate pages that previously had only been edited by me. [22] --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Put it into phabricator, and we should obviously @Tpt:billinghurst sDrewth 04:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Answer by Tpt:

we have added a new user right called "pagequality-admin" that is, by default, enabled only to admins and allow them to tag as validated all pages. It is useful when you want to re-create already validated pages. See task T51482. I'm going to send an email to the mailing list about that.

Hrishikes (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully @Tpt: will also explain how to turn this off for a particular Wikisource—or at least change it to a flagged right that can temporarily be granted by a 'crat for a particular purpose. Given that we give our readers the guarantee that pages marked as validated have been checked by at least two people, this change is not a good thing for the larger Wikisources. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
If you want to restrict this right to 'crat, just fill a bug on phabricator tagged with "site config" and "proofreadpage" to get the change done in en.wikisource configuration. If you want something that could be temporarily granted, you need to create a new user group (doable also in en.wikisource configuration). Tpt (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
To provide some clarification, if you look at Special:ListGroupRights and search for the term "pagequality" you will see two (new) hits. 1) in user which presumably is the first indicator of the migration from code-control to system permissions as the means that the system progresses through proofreading (only logged in users can progress the page status); 2) the admin pair that is the advanced right to jump straight to validated. If this community does not wish this to be available here, we would need to go through the general consultation phase and consensus process for site requests. Here that would be to have the right pagequality-admin removed from the administrator role, and presumably not available elsewhere. If the community wish for this to be a separate assignable right through Special:UserRights by crats or admins, then a consensus discussion can be used. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Noting that there has been some positive commentary on the pha ticket and changes are being proposed. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

RC filtering is broken too. Can't change namespace from "all", can't change number of changes from "50", can't change number of days from "7". Hesperian 05:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not having problems with those issues right now. Just checked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Noting that this change in code was reverted. Opinion is still being sort about how to progress, whether it is an assignable right or not. If it is an assignable right, whether the wikis assign it the same, or they can apply to have it set and how they have it set. Comment probably should be added to the phabricator ticket. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)