Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2017-12

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

Contents

Announcements[edit]

2017 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Nov 6: The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey started today, and already Wikisource has two proposals! But we need more... so come on over to Meta and tell the world what cool new tool or bugfix we need. Anyone can propose anything, anytime till the 19th of November, and then voting on the proposals will begin on the 27th. Sam Wilson 23:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Nov 27: Voting has now started; you've got two weeks to vote. Some Wikisource-related proposals are:

Sam Wilson 00:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Timeless skin deployed[edit]

For the community to note that the skin "timeless" is now available for review of functionality via your preferences—we asked for this to be made available. At this point of time, people can give their error reports via phabricator: or in this section on this page if the community prefers. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposals[edit]

Proposal to standardize the {{table style}} template shorthand codes.[edit]

The shorthand codes of {{table style}} follow no logical sequence for easy recognition, and/or memorization. In addition, there are codes in the parsing table which are not listed and/or ever used.

I prepared a new shorthand table HERE to streamline the codes. The new parsing template HERE retains the old codes as well, not to damage the existing tables.

In the long term, the intention is to replace the old codes, replace rarely used codes with the standard CSS declarations, and eliminate unused codes.

Some stats: There are nearly (~24,000 pages linked to this template out of which, ~16,000 are from The Popular Science Monthly Project

Your input is most appreciated — Ineuw talk 04:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I prefer the current abbreviations and options. I can remember "lg" for large much more easily than "fs" followed by a number I can't remember. Also 92% is equivalent to "fine", so I'm not sure why you'd want to eliminate it, as it's one of the standard font reduction sizes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The long term intent should be to eliminate the system altogether. It is utterly opaque even to experienced non-initiates, and poses an impossible barrier to entry to new contributors. All this to save a few keystrokes. Hesperian 06:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
While this is a good point, I find the drudgery of manually formatting tables to be a much larger barrier. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: First, you can keep using the same codes. Second you fail to realize that there is no size change over a range of percentages as demonstrated in these images File:1536x864res.jpg and File: 1664x936res.jpg. using a code like "fs90" for "font-size of 90%" makes a lot more sense than "lg", "xs" "fine" etc. My general view is that there is very little esthetics in our text where proportional size would look better and the old coding makes it impossible to know. @Hesperian: as for eliminating it, I am completely against it. Live and learn. — Ineuw talk 06:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
No, I can't keep using the same codes if we follow your proposal to change and delete current codes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support conditionally: if it's backwards-compatible, i.e. no "replacement" or "elimination". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
After a thorough rethink (and a good night's sleep), I understand your objections, and only add my codes to the structure and if it is accepted, I need the community's approval to replace the parsing template with this clean and ordered version.

As for Hesperian's suggestion of expanding the codes with their proper CSS declarations I have no objection, as long as the template remains for proofreading. — Ineuw talk 20:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Its a shame there isn't a way to seperate the formating "data" from the template structure ... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It should be more consistent in the notation, IMO.— Mpaa (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
         -->|lh10|lh1=line-height:100% => lh100
         -->|lh11=line-height:110%     => lh110
         -->|lh12=line-height:120%     => lh120
         -->|lh13=line-height:130%     => lh130
         -->|lh15=line-height:150%     => lh140
         -->|lh2|lh20=line-height:200% => lh200
         -->|pt15=padding-top:1.5em    => pt1.5
         -->|p15i1|it1p.5=padding-left:1.5em; text-indent:-1.0em  => p1.5i2
         -->|p25i2|itp.5=padding-left:2.5em; text-indent:-2.0em   => p2.5i2

Bot approval requests[edit]

SpBot[edit]

I note that User:SpBot is running without discussion or community approval, though the edits seem useful (archiving discussions) and probably non-controversial. However, I do not know how the bot determines when a discussion thread is ready to be archived or what time frame is allowed for continued discussion, so those could be issues. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, let's discuss again. BTW, my bot has a bot flag. --Euku (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, looks like it was simply never added to the official list when it was approved. I've now done that. Thanks for your speedy response! --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Mpaa (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Index:Angelo's Pic Nic.djvu[edit]

Can someone plese re-align the OCR text with the page scans? (and remove some duplicate pages at the start)?

I've been trying to pagelist this and it's not helped by the mis-aligned text layer. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The work needs to be checked at archive.org, and may need to be re-derived there, especially as some of the OCR is rubbish. It is a mess, and not one with which that I believe someone should manually try to fiddle if it can be avoided.

Should I ask why you are intervening with someone else's index pages? They uploaded the work, they don't need you intervening on their setup. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It was my understanding that Wikisource was a joint effort, and in trying to reduce the backlog of "File to check" entries, I was checking the pagelist on this work as I've done with countless others, without concern being raised. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems that the text layer is now correctly aligned see Page:Angelo's Pic Nic.djvu/161, but that previously contributed pages need moving to reflect the correct layout. As that needs "somebody else" with admins powers to do block moves, I've reverted any attempts to add a page list, and will leave it for someone amply more competent in such matters such as yourself to resolve it with the uploader. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay it seems my cache is doing something weird. I'll let the uploader do the pagelist ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

Second Edition of Wikisource Conference during 2018 at Strasbourg[edit]

Saluton ĉiuj,

Note: This message is mostly a duplicate of the the wikisource-l announce made on mailing list.

At Strasbourg, we want to organize a second edition of the Wikisource Conference during 2018. Things are falling into place over here, but before we go further, we need to know what kind of event format the community want:

  • how many attendees,
  • coming from where,
  • only wikisourcerers/wikimedians, or also open to a wider public like good potential institutional partners,
  • for how long,
  • in how many rooms with which capacity

We might go with the same format as Vienna, or we might go for something a bit different. Your feedback will be predominant in this decision.

In term of calendar, at first November have been proposed. That would let almost a full year to prepare the event, which might not be too much. We might also couple the event with "bilbiothèque idéale" (ideal library) an annual event which occurs usually in September. We do have institutional internal contact to give us more information about such a possibility, but it also need to be fine for wikisourcerers.

Be bold about gathering feedback from your local community, and let me know if there are other canals/tools you would like to see used for further organization, ie. Meta.

Ĝis baldaŭ, Psychoslave (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

i would suggest an event page either here or on meta, for collaboration. and a grant page to garner funding support. m:Wikisource Community User Group/November 2017 Hangout Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, a page on Meta sounds like a good idea. And talking of hangouts, shall we organise one for December? We could talk more about the conference ideas. Sam Wilson 03:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
May it be politically astute to have it at mulWS? Some of us may have to make a decision on whether to try to get to that or to Wikimania, with that decision-making dependent on the scholarship availability. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
And once that decision is made, we can get some banners requested through the WSes as a minimum. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Cite link label group[edit]

could an admin please create the following reference label pages? it is for a work with roman and numeric footnotes - here are the wikipedia examples : [1]; [2] ; [3] see also w:Help:Cite_link_labels thanks. Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously with the consensus to be that we do not replicate the style of the individual work, and to instead continue with our default/house style. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
fine by me. perhaps you would care to explain to me the house style for this page Page:The_Works_of_Lord_Byron_(ed._Coleridge,_Prothero)_-_Volume_3.djvu/126 i don’t get it. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Have you looked at Help:Footnotes and endnotes#Grouped footnotes? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
yes, are you saying house style is to eschew roman numeral notes? interesting choice. could not find any discussion. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Where did you look for discussion? I found more than a dozen threads on this issue, some of them quite involved, by doing a quick search. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2017-02#Footnote_groups.3F ?? i do not really follow what you are saying. since your "house style" does not replicate the work, i will stop on a work with roman numeral footnotes. but if you have a solution for the referenced page, i would like to see it. Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean when you say that house style does not replicate the work. Do you mean that it gives the footnotes a different symbol than the one in the work? That's quite common here at Wikisource, since individual pages in a work often use asterisks, daggers, or other symbols for marking footnotes. We do not try to replicate that. Most works will start at [1] for their first footnote on every single page, but in our final transcluded copy of the work, our numbering will run consecutively throughout all the pages transcluded to the same location. So again, that is a feature that we do not replicate. Nor do we replicate line breaks on pages, nor place footnotes on every page in the final work but collect them together, nor do we follow double spacing after periods, nor do we indent paragraphs, nor do we worry about specific fonts, nor do we do a great many things when we create a Wikisource copy. So I'm not sure why this particular issue is such a concern to you to slavishly replicate, when there are dozens (hundreds?) of ways in which a Wikisource copy "does not replicate the work". --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
roman numbers are symbols as arabic numbers are symbols. we have a work here with parallel roman and arabic footnotes through seven volumes. but i see you are adamant. it is a level of admin opposition to technical functionality that i am accustomed to seeing on other projects. sad to see it here. Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm (slowly) dealing with a work with two sets of footnotes on each page. A random page from the work is: Page:Romeo and Juliet (Dowden).djvu/113. Take a look and see if that will help. The mainspace page that contains this one is: The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet (Dowden)/Act 2/Scene 4. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-47[edit]

19:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

New print to pdf feature for mobile web readers[edit]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Global Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-11[edit]

15:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Timeless skin — noted issues[edit]

(see announcement section for scope of notes here)

  • Index: namespace— drop down list field for "type" is too wide for central pane
  • both right and left menus, the opposite of "minerva", loads fast - top "your account" drop down box - hides some left menu, would rather move it all there. "more" menu on right is a waste of real estate. waste of space on top toolbar for a large search box - and what a waste of drama on phabricator - no wonder we are stuck with the old skins. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
    • apparently works better on wikipedia, with four dropdown menus: navigation; wiki tools; page tools; languages. with a fifth user menu with search box. maybe they should check out why it does not work the same for wikisource? Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment for me the overarching font-size is too big which is causing wrapping in prev/next, and in pop-up forms. When I can work out which style will decrease the font for the whole page, and forms, then I will try again. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-48[edit]

20:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Index:A woman of the century.djvu is a duplicate of Index:Woman of the Century.djvu[edit]

I just saw that Index:A woman of the century.djvu is a duplicate of Index:Woman of the Century.djvu. It already was mentioned in a topic at the beginning of the year (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2017-01#A_Woman_of_the_Century), but it seems that now the work has been entirely proofread, so the redundant one can be safely deleted.

Koxinga (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Slowking4: is this safe to now delete? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
yes, thank-you. the former was uploaded, before checking for the latter. and latter is now ready for validation. Slowking4SvG's revenge 23:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done thx — billinghurst sDrewth 00:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

A minor question about categorization[edit]

Would Category:Natural resource management be considered as a sub category of Category:Nature? — Ineuw talk 20:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I think that's an ok subcategory. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-49[edit]

17:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Local notes[edit]

  • Special:LintErrors to see where we are situated. It looks to be a long way off for us. From my looking it seems that we have an abundance of trying to use <span> sizing templates over one or more &ltp>. That means either replicating the template formatting for each paragraph, or converting to the block equivalent. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Magazine article in scope?[edit]

There's an article in The New Republic by Lisbet Rausing, a notable (in Wikipedia terms) historian. The article, which talks about how libraries will have to evolve in the internet age, was released by her into the public domain (at the bottom). I personally found this to be an important and insightful article about the world's cultural knowledge and it even mentions Wikipedia's place in this, so I'd like to republish it here since the license allows. However, I'm not sure if it's in scope. We do have magazine articles, and the publishing magazine and author are both notable, but it's a non-fictional opinion piece mainly rather than scholarly, artistic, or analytical. Opencooper (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Opencooper: the guide is WS:WWI and primarily we are wishing for peer-reviewed articles, where that is either academic or professional. I would think that the New Republic would qualify for the publishing medium so it will be fine. While we would normally look to set the article within the context of its publishing medium, that it is unlikely from that source, so it would just be a straight root article, appropriately sourced. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Alright, that makes sense considering the article would have went through editorial. Thanks for the link and the guidance. :). Opencooper (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Update: turns out, I was beaten to it. Sorry, I should have checked if it was uploaded already, but this does help me know what might be acceptable in the future. Opencooper (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

needs a scan on commons, and pages transcluded. Slowking4SvG's revenge 15:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
It seems this was published digitally only. A search of the magazine's archives didn't turn up this article. Opencooper (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Bot fixing broken transclusions (LST-guard)[edit]

Hi community. I have been working for a while on a bot that deals with broken transclusions (under guidance of user:Xelgen). The issue that we try to address are the instances when a user changes section labels in a page A and forgets to update a page B where these sections are transcluded. This doesn't happen a lot, but when it does, it might go unnoticed for quite a long time. Transcluding pages don't show any error or warning message and might even show content (which is potentially incomplete or misplaced).

A fresh example of such a case is here. The transclusion was caught and corrected by the bot here.

You can find a detailed description of how the bot works on github and on user:VacioBot where there is also an stop button that safely and immediately stops the bot from editing.

The reason I write here is to ask if the community feels save to run the bot for a longer period of time non-stop. Until now I tested the bot a few times, about 1-2 days each time. There are still a few things that I am still working on, but I think the bot is ready for a longer run. I would prefer to continue to without a bot flag so its edit are visible to normal users (there aren't going to be more than a few edits daily anyway).

I would be happy to hear your suggestions and opinion. Best --Vacio (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

or you could talk to a certain editor about his section naming practices. Slowking4SvG's revenge 15:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
If you would like to request permission for a bot, there is a special section for Bot Approval Requests at the top of this page. You would start a section there, and provide the necessary information for the Community to voice approval. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Blocking tools consultation[edit]

Hello all,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team invites all Wikimedians to discuss new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools in December 2017 for development work in early 2018.

How can you help?

  1. Share your ideas on the discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
  2. Spread the word that the consultation is happening; this is an important discussion for making decisions about improving the blocking tools.
  3. Help with translation.
  4. If you know of previous discussions about blocking tools that happened on your wiki, share the links.

We are looking forward to learning your ideas.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Caltech "Engineering and Science" issues[edit]

Caltech has made complete issues of Engineering and Science available on its website. http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/view/subjects/journal=5Fissue.html There are 474 issues (at time of writing) dating from 1937 to 2017. These include a number of articles, including Richard Feynman's There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom. All of these have the usage policy

"You are granted permission for individual, educational, research and non-commercial reproduction, distribution, display and performance of this work in any format."

Is this usage policy compatible with Wikisource? -Einstein95 (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, on Help:Copyright tags, it mentions "Please note that non-commercial, fair use, and most copyright licenses are not acceptable; see the copyright policy.", yet Wikisource:Copyright policy doesn't mention the text "non-commercial". -Einstein95 (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
It says "Free content is content which can be freely viewed, used, distributed, modified, and exploited by anyone, in any form, and for any purpose (including commercial exploitation) without exception and without limitation (except as explicitly allowed below)."--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Right, I guess I shouldn't rely in Ctrl+F. -Einstein95 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
No; non-commercial rights are in general not acceptable on Wikimedia. Looking at Engineering and Science, Volume 1:3, December 1937 (which seems to be a different title), there doesn't seem to be a copyright notice. A sample 1946 issue has an attempt at a copyright notice, though it looks deficient. By 1957, they finally figured out the proper form of a copyright notice. Nonetheless, they don't seem to have renewed any of them, so with the possible exception of reprinted material, all of them up to 1963 are probably out of copyright in the US. After that, however, they'd be in copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, brilliant. Guess this will go into the "Projects to start" pile. -Einstein95 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
i would upload to internet archive, and say "PD-US not renewed" for before 63 issues. (they do not appear yet [31] ) then upload to commons, with a category similar to Modern Electrics magazine [32] using IAuploader. cheers. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Page:Historyofpersiaf00watsrich.djvu/139[edit]

I'm not going to ask how this got moved around. Can an admin figure out what the **** went wrong, deleting,purging so that this page IS linked properly again before there's anymore junk created? Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-50[edit]

17:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright laws regarding The Constitution of Bangladesh.[edit]

Please excuse me, as I'm new to Wikisource. I was looking up the constitution of various countries on Wikisource and I noticed that there was no entry about the constitution of Bangladesh. I tried searching around and on This website, which happens to be written in Bengali (I'm from Bangladesh), I found out that government works have 60 years of copyright since their first publication. But my main problem is that on here, it states this certain line: [The reproduction or publication of certain Government works (unless prohibited; sub-s. 17)]. Now, I don't know if the publication of the Constitution Of Bangladesh's allowed or not. As far as I know, It was first ratified in 4 November, 1972 and became effective on 12 December of that same year. It has been about 44 years since first publication. My main question is, Is the publication of the Constitution of Bangladesh allowed? (Also, do excuse my English.) DarkSpartan (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@DarkSpartan: It is allowed under c:Template:EdictGov-Bangladesh. Hrishikes (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Note that translations can have their own problems; we'd need either a clearly free translation or a translation by us. Google Translate or other machine translation can make a start.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg as mentioned in IRC see Wikisource:translations for information about original translations. If there is a scan uploaded in Bangli for the bnWS transcription. The same scan can have an enWS index: page here and corresponding enWS Page: which can be utilised for the image/translation. [Ask me to expand on anything, this is just a concise answer.] — billinghurst sDrewth 01:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
For versions at bnWS: calligraphic: https://bn.wikisource.org/s/bsgd, printed: https://bn.wikisource.org/s/1jn. Hrishikes (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there any interest in creating a WikiProject Numismatics here?[edit]

Hello 👋🏻 everyone,

Would there be support to start a WikiProject Numismatics here on Wikisource? I personally am looking online for old books 📚 on numismatic subjects online and though I currently only have a single one in mind (Annam and its minor currency by Eduardo Toda y Güell), I know that there are plenty of public domain numismatic works to be found. I’m not sure how many people here are interested in joining a WikiProject Numismatics as I’ve already created a WikiProject Numismatics on the Dutch Wikipedia and I am currently still the only member so I don't want to repeat that mistake by launching that project directly after I finish importing Annam and its minor currency by Eduardo Toda y Güell and then be disappointed 😞 when no new members appear. So in order to “test the waters” so to say I wonder if anyone here is interested in joining a WikiProject Numismatics. If there’s plenty of support (at least three potential members) I will create a sub-page in my user-space 🚀 to draft a WikiProject Numismatics.

I think that as a WikiProject it would best concern itself with making collaborative projects where some users make sources available, others work with the syntax and style, while others format and categorise. Maybe we could have a team that contacts Numismatic institutions and musea off-wiki (something I already do for Wikimedia Commons with mixed success), so if there's any interest feel free to say so. smiley

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. -- DonTrung (徵國單)  (討論 🤙🏻) (方孔錢 ☯) 08:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-51[edit]

15:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Global Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-12[edit]

14:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Make author optional in header template[edit]

I would like to propose making the author parameter to the {{header}} template optional, and when it's not given use the {{author-list}} template instead. This pulls authorship information from Wikidata and constructs the correct links. At the moment it's working for normal authors and organisational ones (i.e. portals). It also wraps the links in 'structured HTML' which will help search engines indexing these works.

For example, Holy, Holy, Lord would have an author list of "", and Thompson v. Utah one of "" (without the quotation marks in both cases).

This template looks at the work's Wikidata item for an author, and if it can't find one it looks at the item that the work is an edition of (i.e. it traverses the P629 property).

Note that I'm not at all talking about override_author; that would continue as-is. This is just about the behaviour when the author parameter is left out or is blank.

I don't propose that this is going to be happening very soon, because I'm quite sure that there are things that I don't know about yet. I'll make test cases (at Module:Edition/testcases) for everything, to make future maintenance easier. I'm raising this now firstly to see if anyone thinks it's a good idea, and secondly to garner more examples of works with non-standard authors (i.e. we have lots of works with single, human, authors who have names; that's the simple case; I reckon there're other cases!).

Whadyareckon? —Sam Wilson 06:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Samwilson: Can you please describe what happens when the author field is empty and one of "override_author", "contributor", "override_contributor" is utilised? One of the things that I am uncertain about is that we have to create the work first prior to being able to use wikidata, and there can be that delay, and no certainty that it will be completed. So how would we manage the cases where wikidata does not exist, and presumably we would know it locally though may not be entered. Also how would this work for subpages, especially where these subpages will not be in wikidata, eg. chapters.

And being explicit to those in the community who may not know that the author parameter is currently mandated to exist in the template (though can be left empty), and where it is removed that the template generates an error noting that template is incomplete. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Yes, I should have written it better! This isn't proposing that we remove any of those parameters, just leave them empty and when all of the author-sort-of fields are empty it'll attempt to produce a Wikidata-backed list. It's certainly impossible to programatically account for every variation we've got in use here, but I think it shouldn't be toooo hard to handle the common ones where there's some number of 'normal' authors, who may or may not have their own author pages yet.
I've updated it to handle subpages. Do you know of any examples where there are works with subpages that do have their own Wikidata items? Or perhaps where intermediate subpages do (e.g. multiple volumes, each with a different author)?
And for the situation in which a page is created here but the Wikidata item doesn't yet exist: that'd just be as the status quo is, and nothing would be done.
Sam Wilson 07:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Re subpage works. Many of our encyclopaedic works, especially EB1911 and EB9, though those works are still problematic under old templates (and user resistance slows me taking those up. Soooo, maybe try DMM though I am uncertain how any have WD items Beeswaxcandle (talkcontribs)? We have some series of lectures that could and should have items, but I cannot say that they do. Re solely created here, the issue is if they leave the fields empty in expectation of doing something at WD, then don't we just have an empty work and maybe without means of identification, suche will require tracking and an early intervention strategy. My issue with regard to early intervention is that we need a more enthused community that is comfortable with interventionist approach. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Re DMM. I've done nothing about WD linking, mainly because it holds no interest to me whatever. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hazmat2 (talkcontribs) has done a fair bit of work through American Medical Biographies and I know that includes Wikidata for both biographical entries and author pages, so that would be good one, especially if we want to do some removal of data to test. Hazmat2 an excellently skilled user here and there, so can also give good feedback on shortcutting and minimising unnecessary work. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, it's been a long day so I apologize if I go off topic a little here. I think that the way as described above would work. I do think every subpage in an encyclopedia/dictionary should have its own WD item. Discrete data is important for organization and searching. This would also make what you are describing particularly "easy" to parse data, but I remain cautious. There are many variables to account for. For instance, I use Contributor rather than author for the entries. This is not necessarily correct or incorrect, but it makes more sense to me. Would you therefore overlook the item and follow the published in or edition of route, which may or may not exist? What if you get to the original item and there's only an editor and no author? Also, I'm fairly confident that many users will never touch WD or create items, and I think that's okay. WP users usually don't create items for articles. It's done automatically and then information is parsed out and put into discrete statements by other users and bots. I digress, but my two main points are that non WD users shouldn't feel the difference and it will need some beta testing to get things right. Again, sorry for the broken thoughts. Haz talk 01:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Can a Hebrew speaker help finish this work?[edit]

Index:The Inscription on the Stele of Méša commonly called the Moabite Stone.djvu has three pages left, with Hebrew text. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Forgive my use of this space for a greeting, but I wanted to wish Peace, Hope & Joy to Wikisourcers in every clime and place. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata request for comment on the ideal data import process[edit]

Community Noun project 26481.svg

Dear all

We are currently running a discussion on Wikidata about what the ideal data import process looks like. We want to get the thoughts of people who work on different Wikimedia projects who have different needs and knowledge of different kinds of data to make it our roadmap as inclusive as possible, please take a look.

Many thanks

John Cummings (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

This month's project[edit]

"The man who knew too much" just needs 6 pages to be validated to finish it off. So if you have a mo. Happy New Year Victuallers (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Mostly done, but for two pages that were marked as proofread, but in my estimation had not been proofread. I proofread them, eliminating line breaks, etc., but did not advance to validated. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Please check my attemps to create the new main namespace for this book at The Man who knew too much. I'm still working on it, of course. But I don't know if the existing one - The Man Who Knew Too Much - should be kept. And please check my use of capitals in the title. --Dick Bos (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Dick Bos: Chapter titling should render as Chapter 1, 2, 3... rather than Chapter I, II, III etc. Instead of creating new mainspace pages with the new titling, you should be moving existing pages. I would have moved The Man Who Knew Too Much/Chapter I to The man who knew too much/Chapter 1. As for capitalization, I would not have capitalized "man", but instead used sentence case... Others might disagree. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
It was indicated to overwrite current (Index talk:The man who knew too much.djvu), so yesterday I went ahead. I agree with LJB.— Mpaa (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mpaa: @Londonjackbooks: Sorry, my fault. I had only looked at the first page of the thing. Mpaa, could you also do The Trees of Pride? I'll try to correct the links in the ToC. --Dick Bos (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Getting information[edit]

Hi, I would like to get some information involving Wikipedia articles, and I have some suggestions and some complaints as well is this the right place to go for this? Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This is Wikisource rather than Wikipedia. To ask questions about Wikipedia please see this page over there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

US Code[edit]

the Library of Congress has made more of the US Code pdf’s available, including from William S. Hein & Co, Inc.

maybe we should take a look at refreshing these volumes. Slowking4SvG's revenge 20:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

As it is our United States Code isn't tied to any fixed version and as such falls afoul of our inclusion criteria. A move to one would definitely be a big improvement over letting it stagnate or deleting it and cleaning up all the broken links and such. Quite an undertaking though. Prosody (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
nope, the code is fixed year by year, and constantly being revised. see also United States Statutes at Large and Category:United States Code. but yeah, daunting size, and sidefootnoting, to think about. maybe i should raise with the law library folks at LOC. Slowking4SvG's revenge 03:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Template {{efn}} to manage different group of footnotes with predefined markers[edit]

Is there any reason why the template {{efn}} should not be available and working properly in Wikisource as it is in Wikipedia? Used in Wikisource it produces numeric (instead of letter) markers preceded by the prefix "lower-alpha", as if the template was partially recognized but not implemented… — Malachia (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Because house style is not to do that. We've had this discussion many, many times. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Malachia: local information at Help:Footnotes and endnotes. In short, as we are not looking to replicate the style of the work, and it can fail miserably once we change from page footnotes, to chapter endnotes; hence our decision on how and why we stick with standard numerical refs. Happy to explain why, though as EP says, we don't feel like recycling the debate, noting it is in the archives of this page. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
we will continue to have this discussion as new editors are astonished that functionality is not enabled because "house rules". would you be open to a limited roll out for limited character sets such as roman numbers? Slowking4SvG's revenge 17:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
If it's feasible I don't see why we shouldn't use it. I think it would work fine for roman numerals, letters and also Greek letters. I only see it being a problem and not practical for use with symbols though. Jpez (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment. Perhaps we should have a page that lists and links to past/ongoing discussions of "hot" topics such as footnotes &c., annotations, etc. That way, we can point new editors to the rationale behind current "house style" and they can explore for and against for themselves. The information is out there. It is our responsibility to make it accessible (imo), and it is their choice whether or not to inform themselves. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We created Wikisource:Style guide to assist users, and it holds our collective wisdom for why we do things here as we do.

We created Wikisource:For Wikipedians to assist those at WP to understand that we are different, and how we are different. We have other pages like Help:Footnotes and endnotes that put more context and detail, and again hold the learnings and our guidance. If these need improving to assist users then please improve them. If you think that your improvements could be controversial then start a discussion on the talk page, and if necessary cite it here.

We are on the web, and multiple platforms so we know that an exact replication is not for us, especially as we have the tricks and knowledge of other building and interlinking a library

Specifics. As we have endnotes, not footnotes, and that changes how we present citations. As we are replicating old books with a myriad of publishing style, it should not be a surprise that things will be different, especially as we not creating new encyclopaedic articles. Things are different and if these WP users are indeed "astonished", then we manage their expectations and show them how to do it locally. We cannot expect them to have our local collective wisdom, so they don't know why we do it differently, but it doesn't mean that we should automatically do it differently.

We can have a template, be it {{efn}} or something else, that enables the presentation of <ref> into groups, but we don't wish to have different numbering styles, as we know that these can be problematic. Why is that a problem? Why do we need to bow and scrape to WP's use of a template for their needs that doesn't suit our needs?

If we need to improve our templates, or our information for grouped references, then let us do it, and give some examples of how we do it here. None of that means that we need to change our citation reference styles to meet their perceived needs, or what they have learnt to do somewhere else means that is how it is done here. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I have added a couple of paragraphs to the lead of H:REF#Introduction to Wikisource's presentation style. We can probably better add some specific guidance to demonstrate how to handle grouping of references both in the work, and at transclusion of the work. Whether this needs to be a template or guidance is part of our conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Invisible button in Mobile mode.[edit]

Hi everyone. I recently noticed that when viewing a page either on a mobile device, or on my desktop, but with "mobile mode", there is an "invisible" button to the left of the normal "Download" button (that just prints the current page). When clicked, it uses WSExport to download an Epub copy of the whole page. That's great! But unfortunately not many people will click on that button, because currently it is blank. I have looked it up, look at the console in mobile mode and found that it is throwing an error, and the burron suppoused to look like this EPUB silk icon monochrome.svg, but that image doesn't load. I think the issue arises from MediaWiki:Mobile.css. I think it is trying to load the image relative to the wikisource domain, and not directly from Commons. I think it may be lacking the protocol HTTP. I don't know if formerly worked, but maybe its like this for years. --Ninovolador (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ninovolador: Thanks for the note. It would seem that they have a series for this month's featured text, and as such it doesn't fit our normal download profile. Something typical would be Template:Featured text/November so see how that looks to you. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I don't think so. Mediawiki:Mobile.js and Mediawiki:Mobile.css remain the same for 2 years. For some reason the archival bot deleted my previous comment, so i copypaste it here:

I confirm that adding "https:" to the second background-url statement (and getting rid of the first, that gets completely replaced by the second) fixes the problem, and gets enWS a nice little feature . --Ninovolador (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice that on the "button menu" there is EPUB silk icon monochrome.svg. If you go to "mobile mode" you won't see it. --Ninovolador (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ninovolador: The thing is that it would appear that we didn't have, or want to have, a download with the December FT. The November version already had the active components; and I see the January version similarly available with an active green EPUB and others. So I am not seeing the problem that you describe. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Maybe its my broken english... I will try to rephrase it.
  1. First, go to *any* work (not just FT) on *mobile view* (i.e. accessing the website from a mobile device such as a tablet or a smartphone, or simply clicking the mobile view link at the bottom of the screen).
  2. Then, notice that there are, below the title, four "buttons": OOjs UI icon language-ltr.svg Interwiki button, OOjs UI icon download-ltr.svg PDF download button, OOjs UI icon star.svg Add to Watchlist button, and OOjs UI icon edit-ltr.svg Edit button.
  3. Then, click on the space just to the left of the "PDF download button", where no button appears to be. Check the first image of the gallery.
  4. The result: you will download an ePUB copy of the work.
This is not a bug, this is the result of the javascript running on Mediawiki:Mobile.js, that generates it. But a bug spanning several years prevents the button's image EPUB silk icon monochrome.svg to actually show up. The solution, if you still want to retain that feature, is to modify Mediawiki:Mobile.css the way i stated before. If, on the other hand, you don't want to retain this feature, you'd have to modify Mediawiki:Mobile.js and strip away the code that produces the button. --Ninovolador (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, we are talking cross-purposes. I thought that you were talking WS:FT as appear on the main page. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: even so: are you not interested in fixing this? You only have to modify Mediawiki:Mobile.css to add "https:" in front of the second "background-image: url( '//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/EPUB_silk_icon_monochrome.svg' );" so it says "background-image: url( 'https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/EPUB_silk_icon_monochrome.svg' );" --186.67.71.38 03:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Samwilson: you seem to be the most "technical" administrator. Would you take a look on this? --Ninovolador (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ninovolador, @Billinghurst: It seems that MinervaNeue or MobileFrontend (I think) is doing some fancy rewriting of URLs in mobile.css, because what's in the CSS '//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/EPUB_silk_icon_monochrome.svg' is actually being served as https://en.m.wikisource.org/w/%20'//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/EPUB_silk_icon_monochrome.svg' and changing to https doesn't fix this. I'll keep digging. Sam Wilson 23:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, it was just that there were quotes around the URL, and they're not required. Now removed and things seem to work again. I suspect this bug has not existed for years, but was brought about by some recent change in the CSS parser. Maybe? :-) Anyway, does it work for you now? Sam Wilson 23:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
It is working normally now, thanks to you! --Ninovolador (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)