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 March 2021, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Links to another wiki, in another language[edit]

Is there a method to create links to another wiki, such as French Wikipedia, Wikionary, etc., etc.? AnotherEditor144 t - c 18:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@AnotherEditor144: w:fr:Main Page, wikt:ontology, c:COM:VP/T. See w:Help:Interwiki linking for some guidance. But please do not add such links to transcribed works here (except the occasional Wiktionary link). See WS:Links and WS:Annotations. --Xover (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: Ok. I was planning to put it on my user page anyway. AnotherEditor144 t - c 19:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-09[edit]

19:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikifunctions logo contest[edit]

01:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

pages using pixel widths?[edit]

It's generated by the file checker of the index namespace. Can someone tell me what it means? Thanks. — Ineuw (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ineuw: It's added automatically by (for the moment) {{Auxiliary Table of Contents}} and {{letter-spacing}}. See H:PXWIDTH for details. --Xover (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Much thanks for the links. — Ineuw (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

"Do not move to Commons" template slightly broken[edit]

The documentation of Template:Do not move to Commons states that the template is supposed to add the page it's used on to Category:Media not suitable for Commons (or one of its subcategories). However, it seems this feature only functions correctly when the "expiry" argument is used, even though this argument is supposedly optional.

When used without "expiry", there's a piece of categorization wikicode visible below the template (see File:Canadian poems of the great war.djvu for an example). The page also isn't added to the aforementioned (hidden) category. -- (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC) It was a recently introduced bug. It's fixed now. Thanks for the headsup! --Xover (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"rescuing" works no longer in publication[edit]

This is for far into the future, but is there some means by which works that are no longer being published can be made "public domain" in the last 20 years of their copyright? I was thinking about this in terms of the recent Dr. Seuss controversy. As it is, some of his books will be effectively mothballed for decades at the publisher's request. "If I Ran the Zoo" was originally published 1950 and would have been public domain 2025 under the pre 1998 copyright, but will effectively have no new printings for over 2 decades from now since the copyright ends on 2045 under current law. If the company doesn't want to publish it anymore, could it be made available on here in 2025, or is this another "Disney Vault" type scenario? (SurprisedMewtwoFace (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC))

What you as an individual do for an out of publication work is for you do decide. Copyright is the right to make a copy, and we don't have that right for works that are under copyright in the United States. The copyright holders are able to do as they wish, and are not restricted by copyright law by what a publisher decides. There may of course be other considerations that limit people's actions under other laws. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
The concept is called an "orphan work" and has been the subject of $$$ legal cases involving Google and Hathi Trust. I'm not sure there's a solid case for being able to slap "free for commercial reuse" on them (specifically under US law) as we would need to be able to do to host them here. The Internet Archive has the Sonny Bono collection, but, crucially, they don't claim that you're allowed to freely re-use the works, they just claim they have the right to host and show them. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
this is the same case as mein kampf, which time has now passed in german. you could do a renewal search, to check PD status. there is controlled digital lending at IA. doubtless the cottage industry of "canceled" books will be treated like scihub. Slowking4Rama's revenge 16:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Advice on Complicated authorship[edit]

Hi everyone, in the series of papers I am creating one of them has 184 authors, yes I know a headache. I have not uploaded this paper yet to commons am doing the first paper right now just waiting for COMS:OTRS to update licensing. Anyway I am trying to think of how best to capture the authorship without spending 2 pages just doing the authors. The original paper is online here on my taxon authority page on wikispecies it appears like this with only first few authors and a reference linking to the template here that has all the authors. Another option I guess would be to make both the author list and affiliation lists expandable boxes that default to closed and those who wish can expand them. Or any other suggestions are welcome. I am happy to do all the setup for this just need some direction on what you prefer. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 14:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest to put a reasonable number of authors on the front page, then add an et al. Add edition = yes and paste them as raw text to the work talk page. I would think that it is more appropriate to get them all in the WD item, than all active hyperlinks here. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Error in Module:Age[edit]

While importing Template:User Wikisource For (among other connected templates and a module), I got a Lua error:

Lua error in Module:Age at line 651: attempt to call local 'Date' (a nil value).


  1. Module:Age:651: in function "getDates"
  2. Module:Age:816: in function "chunk"
  3. mw.lua:518: ?
  4. [C]: ?
  5. [C]: in function "getAllExpandedArguments"
  6. mw.lua:187: ?
  7. [C]: in function "pairs"
  8. Module:Arguments:207: in function "mergeArgs"
  9. Module:Arguments:320: ?
  10. [C]: in function "pairs"
  11. Module:Userbox:54: in function "chunk"
  12. mw.lua:518: ?
  13. [C]: ?

What is this and how can it be fixed? -- AnotherEditor144 t - c 20:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@AnotherEditor144: That's rather a lot of heavy and complicated dependencies for a userbox. Just sayin'…
The dependency chain ends up requiring w:Module:Date, but our Module:Date is actually c:Module:DateI18n. As it happens, we need to migrate our module to the new name anyways (the name change was specifically so they could coexist so we'll run into this kind of dependency conflict elsewhere anyway), but that's a somewhat bigger job.
PS. Copying between projects (or pages within a project for that matter) requires attribution (the "BY" part of the license), at a minimum with a link to the source page. But it is generally better to ask an admin to use the import function so we get the revision history. --Xover (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: The attribution will be provided soon. -- AnotherEditor144 t - c 08:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: You were going to move, but now you have a second Date module in the way! AnotherEditor144 t - c 08:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@AnotherEditor144: I'm not following? --Xover (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: You said you were going to migrate your current module to the new name, and there might be a conflict. AnotherEditor144 t - c 09:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@AnotherEditor144: Hmm, no. At least I don't think I said that anywhere. I said that we need to migrate our Module:Date to Module:DateI18n, because that's what they've done on Commons and we imported our module from there. Once that is done we can import English Wikipedia's w:Module:Date to Module:Date here, which would solve your dependency problem. And I said that we need to do this irrespective of your immediate problem, because there are lots of relevant templates and modules that we might want to import that rely on these modules living at a particular name.
But the issue with that is that it needs to be done carefully by identifying all the templates and modules that have a direct or indirect dependency on the current module, and finding a way to migrate them without causing disruption on every single page that transcludes one of those templates. Which means this is slightly more involved (and hence time-consuming) than simply making a small fix to the code or renaming a wikipage, so you shouldn't expect it to happen within any particular timeframe. --Xover (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: Then you should do it. AnotherEditor144 t - c 09:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: The 'date' module at w:Module:Date (without i18n) will also be stored in my user space for your convenience: User:AnotherEditor144/Module-Date-enwiki
@AnotherEditor144: Feel free to keep a local copy in your user space, but please do not create anything in other namespaces that depends on a page in your user space. --Xover (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: Nobody will notice the page anyway, as the only link is here. Feel free to use it during importing. It will only be accurate as of today. -- AnotherEditor144 t - c 11:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

More importantly, why do you think that we need Template:User Wikisource For? Seems a pretty pointless template. Just because enWP has a ton of valueless user boxes, doesn't mean that we need to do so. Nor do we need to jump by command to make something of limited value work here. Bit rude IMNSHO. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Install .djvu version instead of .pdf?[edit]

This is an installed .pdf version with some poor quality pages. Downloaded another copy and converted it to The Barbarism of Slavery.djvu. Can I install the 2nd file and leave both file types for the time being?— Ineuw (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Certainly. We have plenty of duplicates like that. You can also move the Page:-namespace pages and even the Index: to the DjVu file (turn off "Create redirect" if you don't anticipate needing the PDF versions for anything). Once you're done proofreading the DjVu you can delete anything remaining for the PDF. --Xover (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification.— Ineuw (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Cobra!!! ....the Valentino Film[edit]

@PseudoSkull: I have just finished uploading Cobra (1925, Rudolph Valentino) to Wikisource. You can REEETTTRREEAAATTTT over there and find it at I will continue trying to find the remaining 1925 silents. A lot of them are lost films and it may take a while. I DID find a decent file of Merian C. Cooper's Grass but it has a video company logo on the very beginnning of it, right before the movie itself starts. This print is completely silent and has no other blemishes or attempts to claim additional copyright. Would you like me to post a link to it? (SurprisedMewtwoFace (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC))

@SurprisedMewtwoFace: Thank you for uploading this film. Please upload whatever you may find, and feel free to add them to this list when you're done: Wikisource:WikiProject Film/Uploaded to Commons. On another note, I think it might be better to post further messages regarding new films found etc. to the talk page of WikiProject Film so as not to clutter up the Scriptorium, as the Scriptorium is for more general discussion. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

WikEd v. 2017 Loading Error[edit]

When I've clicked "Edit" on proofreading pages such as [[3]], usually I've had the page fail to load (and no editing field), but if I load again it works. Today it failed to load altogether after reload attempts, so when I waved over the icon in the very upper right of the window and saw I could and "Disable" WikEd, I did so, and then the Edit page loaded fine. The error message was "Loading Error, WikEd v. 2017..."

Perhaps this has to do with the djvu and the complexity of the page; I have no problem with the editor or WikEd on other pages. Nissimnanach (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Nissimnanach


If I have a screenshot of a news article that I have stored as a *.png, can I combine it with the text that I transcribed and transform that into a *.djvu file to store at Commons? Or are all *.djvu files we store already formed as image+text when Internet Archive scans a document and performs OCR? --RAN (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@RAN: For our purposes the pre-generated OCR text is usually what we need (it's a starting point to make it easier to transcribe). When we generate DjVu files ourselves it is usually in bulk to add OCR for a (several hundred page+ book). However, if you have some need of a DjVu with a proofread text in its text layer I can probably make one for you (not done exactly that before, but it shouldn't be a problem). For Wikisource's purposes the text layer stops being relevant the moment you hit "Publish" on the Page: (only the page image is relevant for comparisons at that point), so you could just as well just paste the text in there and index off the PNG. --Xover (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I just wanted to create one, so I can understand the file format better. I see online file converters that can change a png to a DjVu, but they do not actually integrate text. Can you recommend a free tool that makes combining text and an image as easy as creating a pdf, where the ASCII text or Unicode text, is stored, hidden within the document? --RAN (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@RAN: I don't know of any that are actually easy to use. But the reference implementation of the format is DjVuLibre which contains downloadable (command-line) tools to do pretty much anything you like. Depending on your level of computer geekery you may find the tools anywhere from mildly complicated to completely inscrutable. For creating a DjVu from a PNG you'll want to look at c44 (DjVuPhoto) or cjb2 (bitonal). For adding text you'll need to look at djvused (the "set-txt" command). You may also want to look at GraphicsMagic for command-line image format conversions (DjVuLibre can't work with PNG images directly). You may also find some of the (now badly outdated) information on Help:DjVu files useful. --Xover (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yikes! I will take a look, looks like a good opportunity for someone to come up with an easy to use set of tools. --RAN (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    Typically we upload to, and then download, and use IA-Bot to generate a djvu. If you only have a single file, then it is a bit of a waste of time, as that can be uploaded and an Index: page generated with Page: links. then you can just OCR the images anyway. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
    yeah, i put in for an integrated upload dashboard tool on wishlist, and it got slow walked, as they did some other things. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 21:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I have an image → DJVU+OCR script, but it's a bit of a mess and can't really be posted as a single script (there are imports and things). I'm slowly trying to beat it into shape so that it can be used by others. But for now, you can upload the image ZIP to the Internet Archive and I'll run it through for you.
  • The problem with a hands-free solution is that there are a few knobs to adjust, for example some pages need the threshold varying because the print is too light or the page colour too dark. One day I hope to get it up on Toolforge with a web front-end. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I will try the upload and download trick. Can you load text into the metadata for a png file? I know there is a comments field I can access from one of my digital cameras, I don't know how much ASCII text it can hold. I see several online EXIF data editors for fixing incorrect dates stored with images. --RAN (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't know about PNG. There certainly are metadata fields that can hold, as far as I know, an unlimited amount of data, but I don't know if there's any standard for embedding OCR. What I can produce for you is a DJVU with the text layer built in to each page. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-10[edit]

17:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Better Current collaborations Section[edit]

I don't think that the Current Collaborations section on the front page is serving us to well. For one, the current Community collaboration has been done for week. Instead, I propose that we have a runnig list that automatically progresses to the next work once the current one is done. Furthermore, I propose that we divide the texts into four categories and diplay all four at once to allow users more choice and cater to more skill levels.

  1. Easy - These texts will be proofread texts that need validation. They will serve to introduce users to wikicode through an immersive environement and provide a low barrier to entry.
  2. Medium - These texts will require proofreading, but have fairly decent OCR. They can be novel or books imported from PGDP.
  3. Hard - These books have more complex layouts and may have more garbeled OCR, but they should not present too great of a challenge. Perhaps a book with lots of images or a few tables or a pre-19th century works with long s and ligatures.
  4. Challenge - These are probably mainly reference books or manuscripts. Lots of complex formating required.

In this way, users can select from the range of difficulty and have a choice of which book they wish to proofread. Since the list will automatically update, we will not have a situation where a finished book will sit for weeks in the spot reserved for Community Collaboration. Languageseeker (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: The better place for this discussion is WT:Proofread of the Month as that is where that project is coordinated. We have had a variety of means to progress to subsequent works at the completion of the primary work. When I ran the project for a number of years we did followup plans. There is the means coded into Template:Collaboration/POTM to build a list of works that can be quickly implemented in either an extra work, a validation push, or overflow works. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Author:Stephen King[edit]

I noticed we have an empty entry for Author:Stephen King which I imagine is for the copyright statement, would it be within rules to add in the titles of his works, even if they would all be red links, or all only point to the Wikidata or Wikipedia entry for each work. Or say we have an author where some are PD and others still under copyright, have a listing of all works and distinguish between the two. Or is the listing of works only for PD works we host? --RAN (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's any rule against doing so. I've seen it done for plenty of other authors. Thanks for helping out. Languageseeker (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
For authors where some works are PD and some are not, a complete list is acceptable (e.g. E. F. Benson. However, the works we can't host are best left unlinked. For authors where no works can be hosted by us, it's better to not list at all. In both situations this reduces the temptation to add works that would then have be removed under the copyright rules. As you say, the author pages for Stephen King & J. K. Rowling are there to indicate that they are copyright authors. Normally, we would delete such pages, but as these two (amongst others) are likely to be repeatedly created, it was decided to leave them with the copyright notice. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I would think this is a sensible idea but I've had a very stupid edit war with an admin about this very issue so watch out. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Per Beeswaxcandle, the community determined that we would not host pages where we could not host works, and/or they have no works in the public domain. Apart from the element of false advertising, once we open that door, we have very little ability to stop the conflict of interest additions. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  • When you say "the community determined" it would make the most sense to link to the RFC where that debate took place and consensus was formed, so we can all see it. What is a "conflict of interest addition"? --RAN (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
    In Wikisource:PD somewhere maybe 2010, 2011 or 2012, the conversation started with dealing with someone who was adding (semi-)modern Canadians, some of whom were politicians, though it reflected other pieces. Conflict of interest is someone, or their agent, who is publishing a book, and thinks that they can create an author page and list their works. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Again multiple people are reading the same policy are coming to the exact opposite conclusion. Stephen King & J. K. Rowling get empty author pages but Canadian politicians do not get pages. The rules should be so precise, and objective, that a bot can implement them. Subjectively enforcing poorly written rules is how we end up with selection bias and time wasting edit wars. --RAN (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
    No. Rowling and King were part of an overt discussion by the community where a consensus was reached it was determined that these were exceptions. This was mentioned above. There was no subjective enforcement. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Two authors out of 1,000 best selling authors, seems arbitrary, and is another example of selection bias. It is telling readers that only these two authors are important enough to be included, and that your favorite author is not important. The list would be objective if it was the best selling authors with no writing in the public domain. Maybe they fit that category, but why two and not ten? --RAN (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
    Says nothing of the sort. Stop getting your knickers in a twist about the community making decisions about issues that were discussed. The community is able to make their decisions based on the facts at that time. Go and read the discussion if you have that level of interest. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
The whole point of Wikisource:Scriptorium is to bring issues to the community without judgement. Being told I am getting my "knickers in a twist" is definitely not the way to handle a question, if you feel the need to insult the person asking a question, then let someone else answer it. Past practices should always be reexamined, especially when they create a selection bias. If the policy was clear and universally accepted, we wouldn't have half of the people responding to my inquiry come to opposite conclusion as you. You said the discussion was in "2010, 2011 or 2012", a decade ago, how is that representative of the thinking of the people contributing today? --RAN (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion actually appears to have been in 2017: Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2017#Living_author_pages_with_no_works, and the "really famous author keep and mark {{copyvio author}}" concept was affirmed in 2020: Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2020#Author:Richard_Dawkins.
Also, though it's not "Policy", but rather "help", the text Where a person is self promoting and/or no works are likely to be hosted at Wikisource. is listed as a contra-indication for creation of an author page at H:Author pages. So, though it's not clearly marked or laid out in policy or guidelines, the general discouragement is at least mentioned. I have expanded the help page to describe what I perceive to be "standard practice": Help:Author_pages#Authors_with_no_known_public_domain_or_free_texts. As it is help pages, it is not normative.
A better solution, IMO, will be, as I said in the Wikilinks discussion, to use something like {{wdl}} to allow us to anchor any incoming links to the immutable data item for a given modern author. In most cases, that will lead to Wikipedia. Then, one day, when an author page is created because a PD text finally surfaced, then the link will auto-switch to the author's WS page. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I am not advocating for inclusion/deletion, I was just curious why we had an empty entry. Sometimes it takes someone seeing something for the first time to recognize it as not fitting in with the other entries. --RAN (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Newspaper entries[edit]

I have been categorizing the various newspaper entries and I keep coming across ones that are not in any category. See for instance The Pittsburgh Press where it has a category for the city it is published in, and the state that it is published in. Can anyone think of way to find all the entries that are not categorized yet. We do not have a space for papers like "Periodical:The Pittsburgh Press" so the only way to find them is with an existing category. --RAN (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Special:UncategorizedPagesbillinghurst sDrewth 00:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • That won't work, there are just too many uncategorized entries, I am at 5,000 I am still in the letter "A", and none were newspapers. --RAN (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I will just have to be extra careful when I create them, to make sure I add a category, or they will get lost. --RAN (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): ...think of way to find all the entries: do you mean articles or newspapers.
As long as you create articles under the newspaper's main page, they'll be easy enough to find. BTW, Wikisource:WikiProject Newspapers recommends Newspaper Name/YYYY/MM/DD/Article Name for the article page name, rather than Newspaper Name/YYYY/Article Name. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am aware of Newspaper Name/YYYY/MM/DD/Article Name. I made my first contribution under Article Name and another editor migrated it to Newspaper Name/YYYY/Article Name, and I have been using that format before I read Portal:Newspaper. I recently contributed the paragraph describing all the permutations currently in use. --RAN (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Turkish fairy tales and folk tales (1901).djvu[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Source file updated, index adjusted.

The scan for Index:Turkish_fairy_tales_and_folk_tales_(1901).djvu is missing p186 and p187. I provided the two missing pages from a separate scan. Can you please integrate them. Afterwards, can you shift the text by +2 starting at Page:Turkish fairy tales and folk tales (1901).djvu/7 (the text for DJVU page 9 is on pg 7). Much Appreciated Languageseeker (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: Yes check.svg Done --Xover (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: Thanks! Languageseeker (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Spaulding Guide 1894[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Pages moved.

Can you move the text from Index:Spalding's official base ball guide, 1894.djvu to Index:Spalding's base ball guide, and official league book for ... - a complete hand book of the national game of base ball .. (IA spaldingsbasebal02chic).pdf. The offset should be +3. Thanks Languageseeker (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: The original pages where created by Match & Split, so just undo the "split" edits by phe-bot in mainspace and then redo the M&S to the new index. If the old index's file is broken in some way then please tag the index accordingly (or ask for deletion). --Xover (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: Normally, I would but a user has proofread a number of the pages and I don't want to lose those revisions. Languageseeker (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: Yes check.svg Done Migrated to Index:Spalding's Baseball Guide (1894).djvu and pages shifted. The PDF was of dubious quality, and that auto-generated name a real pain to work with, so I regenerated it from the source scans instead. As a nice side effect you've now got just north of 10x the resolution to play with. --Xover (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: Thanks! Languageseeker (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The Book of Evelyn[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Index abandoned.

The generated DJVU on IA only has 372 pages while the JP2 archive has 379 images for Index:The book of Evelyn (1913).djvu. Is there anyone that can generate a new DJVU for this book and upload it? Languageseeker (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: the "missing" pages are usually non-content things like tissue paper plate protectors and the IA doesn't include them in the output formats like PDF and DJVU. Is there any missing content? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
There is no missing content. The difference is 2 plate protectors and 4 scan calibration pages (the zip contains 378 images, not 379). --Xover (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
@Xover, @Inductiveload: Thank you for checking. Yes, the book is unfortunately missing several pages. Languageseeker (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The Aeneid of Virgil JOHN CONINGTON 1917 V2.pdf[edit]

The following discussion is closed:

The file The Aeneid of Virgil JOHN CONINGTON 1917.pdf was deleted on Commons. So I uploaded The Aeneid of Virgil JOHN CONINGTON 1917 V2.pdf and moved the Index for The Aeneid of Virgil JOHN CONINGTON 1917.pdf to Index:The Aeneid of Virgil JOHN CONINGTON 1917 V2.pdf. Could you move the pages as well? Languageseeker (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: Yes check.svg Done --Xover (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: Thanks! Languageseeker (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Ability to Add Formatting Guidelines or Important Information to the Index Page[edit]

I think that it would be extremely useful to have the ability to add some formatting help or general guidelines on the Index page itself. I know that we can add them to the Discussion section, but this is out of the view of users. This would save users having to look through the vast help section to just find a tiny bit of information. Instead, we could have a mini-help section on every Index page to deal with any bit of formatting necessary. This would be easy for users to find and make it possible for them to contribute. Languageseeker (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

This is done on the Index talk page. See Index talk:Manual of the New Zealand Flora.djvu for one of mine. Then look at the Index itself. Note the banner across the top pointing to the fact that there are formatting guidelines on the talk page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Yep, but that's less visible to users. My proposal is to move such guidelines from the discussion page to the main index page for greater visibility to reduce user error and confusion. Languageseeker (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: Putting all the formatting instructions on the Index page would make rather a mess of the page. Some (not many) works have a lot of notes (e.g. transliteration tables, etc), and are sometimes subject to in-line discussions. Also, the Index pages are "secretly" actually just a big ol' template MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template with a magical form-based edit interface. Stuffing arbitrary formatting instructions (e.g. tables) into the form fields is going to throw up frustrating edge cases, even if you had a good place to dump them on the page.
I suggest looking at ways to make {{Index talk remarks}} clearer. It's possible (in theory) to add a field to the Index page template, and pass it along to {{Index talk remarks}}, but I'm not sure what we'd put in such a field. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 08:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Less visible??? There is clear text that says look at the talk page for formatting. If they aren't seeing that then maybe they are not looking. The formatting on the Index: page really has a little bit of room at the top. There is a little scope to add something to the TOC field, as we did with DNB works in the early days though it was horrible for trying to add detailed instruction, hence why we moved to the talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I can see it, but even one additional click makes it less probable for a user to see it. Also, they don't always exist. It's easy to forget that some users may not know how to add bold text or italic. If a new users clicks on a transcription project, then they shouldn't have to dig through pages of documentation to find the answer. I'm basically asking for the ability to make a mini help page on every Index page. Languageseeker (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: but why is the index page the right place for this? If it's stuff like bold and italic, that's general formatting and the ">Help" menu at the top of the edit box on every page contains that. Index talk pages contain special formatting conventions for that index only. BTW, it's on my secret list to figure out how to make our edit box top bar more useful for what we actually do, since it's contains not much of use for WS special sauce. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload, @Billinghurst:The index page is the appropriate space because it is the first thing that a user sees when they decide to participate in a transcription project. Based on the Index page, they will decide whether or not to contribute. Right now, the Index page is about as exciting as a library catalog record. I want to increase the motivation of users to participate in a transcription project. As an example, I wrote up what I would like to see on the Index Page here. Ask yourself the question, based on this information are you less likely or more likely to participate?
@Inductiveload: Your custom edit bar sounds awesome. I have some ideas if you want to hear them. Above all, I think that we should be able to customize the edit bar based on the specific book. Languageseeker (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: For most/many of our works there should be ZERO requirement for special formatting instructions. They typically have been used for more complex multi-volume works, or for where some PotM so that there is uniformity. Having someone increase participation is not through putting formatting instructions on an Index: page. If one click is going to deter someone, then 200 to 500 clicks later for a 200 page book is going to kill them. Do not try to make an Index: or an Index: talk page into a Wikisource:WikiProject page. For complex co-operative works, especially those in a series, a good project page is a better way to go, and from there you can add sections and transclude those sections into relevant Index: talk pages. I would much rather look to encourage project pages, and active project talk pages, and invest in linking Index: and project pages to work better. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
That said, I think that there is some scope for how we can utilise Template:Index talk remarks and do some simple/additional/introductory text on the talk page of the index that could be transcluded back into the Index: page. We don't want to make it too much or too busy. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
On that note, what we could do, fairly easily, is add a field to the Index page form and template for "relevant Wikiprojects". I'm not sure where would be best for them on the page (e.g. top right or the main table).
It occurs to me that we could also add a drop down for setting {{index transcluded}} parameters too, rather than stuffing it into the TOC field. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload, @Billinghurst: Thank you for the detailed feedback that helped me clarify my thought. I definitely don't want to flood the index page with lots of extra content, but I do think a little help can be useful, especially for the tricky cases. This is the approach that video games take: a bit of guidance helps users to invest hundreds of hours in difficult tasks. I do think that we can provide a bit more information on indexes without cluttering it up.
I that the idea of transcluding from the Index Discussion to the Index Page is a great idea. Perhaps, we could have a set section called Transcribing Guidelines that we could transclude. This section would contain an introduction to the work, it's significance, and any special instructions. We would tell users to keep it short.
I disagree (my opinion only) that the Index: ns is the place to talk to them about the work; Index: and its talk space are solely a workspace and instructional, rather than contextual or informational; those aspects of a work belong in more obvious and in front-facing content namespaces, which for us have been main, WS:, Author:, or Portal:. I would encourage you rethink that approach, they are not a place for bloat. Help:Namespaces gives that direction. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I'm not asking to add a wall of text. I'm merely asking to add one or two sentences to explain why a user should care about this book and a few special formatting instructions (if any). We can even make the section collapsible to reduce bloat. For more detail information, we can include a site matrix as we do on transcluded works. Look at the current Proofread of the Month Women of the West can you give me one reason that is obvious to the user as to why they should help to transcribe it? We can't just give users a book, tell them to transcribe it, and expect them to get involved. People need reasons to volunteer. Languageseeker (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
And I will say it again, the Index: namespace is not the place to do it, it is not joe-public front-facing namespace, you are already too deep. I have no issue with all the encouragement, excitation, interest, etc. and it belongs before you get to an Index: ns. Keep it simple. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
That seems like a fairly elitist attitude. Every user is a new user at some point. Where are they supposed to learn? Languageseeker (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
What?!? You are trying to do multiple things, and think that the Index: page is the panacea. I am disagreeing with your proposal.

Every new contributor has a welcome message that gives them all the basics, and should lead them to our general approach, and anything general. We have agreement and general practice that where this is specific formatting that may be specialist to the work that it belongs on the Index talk: page. However, all explainers about the work, its place in a corpus, etc. do not belong on the Index: page, they belong in our other namespaces where they are more visible and more organised, and I have explained why. So please stop the throwing of insults. We fix up the issues where they lie, not poke them all into an Index: page. As I mentioned previously, we have used the ToC field for some commentary about works, eg. DNB volumes. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I’ve been feeling bad about my poor choice of words. You didn’t deserve them at all. Please, accept my apologies. Languageseeker (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
If we take a cue from video games, an "in-page tutorial" makes more sense to me. Like when websites flash a little "helpful" (I find them rather a speedbump, but they must be useful or they wouldn't be used) marker over "new" items. You are fundamentally right, on-boarding and new-user-support, as well as complete but accessible documentation, is hugely lacking, and we must improve it.
BTW, The main "portal" for basic instructions is Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely agreed, PGDP include similar information on their project pages and it works. We cannot assume that users will know before they stumble on an index page. Even including a link to proofreading guidelines on index pages would be a huge help. We really need to make index pages less stark. I think there’s also fear of redundancy between headers and index page. Can’t we pull more information from the info on index pages rather than manual filling in headers? Languageseeker (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikisource:Annotations => to official document[edit]

We have had the page sitting there and chanting it as an official document for so long, so I think that it is just time we take off the template at its top. Time to just move on it, or fix it and move on it— billinghurst sDrewth 05:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I apologize for this being so long: The document as it is written now is contradictory concerning wikilinks within the body of entries, people are citing it and coming to opposite conclusions. This has created edit wars over adding/removing wikilinks, wasting time. I prefer wording that complies with the RFC located here: "Wikilinks are annotations and are allowed in Wikisource. The creation of wikilinks is optional, where created they should be based on context, the type of work and the likely reader." We now have contradictory policy pages Wikisource:Annotations and Wikisource:Wikilinks with each claiming they ban or allow wikilinks in the body of an entry. The same wording needs to appear in each, so they do not contradict each other. The policy should also address "specially labelled separate copies of works" that User:Xover keeps referring to, but has not been able to give an example of. It would also help if the policy page contained clear specific examples of proper annotations and improper annotations. When we only have words, and no examples, people interpret the words differently. Read the Wikilinks discussion on this very page, above, where multiple people are coming to opposite conclusions based on the wording of the very policy page under discussion as it written now. We also have to address when two policy pages contradict, which has supremacy. We also need a better policy on flagging errors of fact and flagging spelling errors. They should be addressed, but in a way that the annotation is distinguishable from the original source material. Just adding [sic] without telling the reader what the correct word should be, leaves the reader in the dark. For instance, the New York Times addresses errors in their online articles, we should have a system here, where it is clear that the correction is not part of the original article, and that it has been added by a Wikisource editor, perhaps at the bottom of the page below the license. Clearly we do not need these for fiction, but for newspaper articles. If we do not address errors, people will be using the errors as references in Wikipedia and Wikidata. If an obituary states that a person was born in 1880 and we have the birth certificate at Commons and we have that person in the 1900 US census, and those documents use 1878, we should address that at the bottom of the page, in a way that the reader recognizes it is an annotation by a Wikisource editor. --RAN (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I know that comparing texts in crude blocks is disallowed, but what about automatically comparing differences between editions? This is quite common in scholarship. Languageseeker (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
    Special:ComparePages? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Languageseeker: Personally, I'm not philosophically opposed to the idea, but I have yet to see any really good example of that kind of thing. The problems are a pincer of the Mediawiki platform we have being a fairly poor fit for that kind of thing on the one hand, and on the other the fact that creating such a work is actually a pretty major undertaking compared to the value proposition and people generally burn out and abandon their project after the first chapter or so. Also, since we (rightly, IMO) don't allow interpretive annotations in any case, such a comparative work is extremely dry. I imagine a better WMF fit for such a thing might be at Wikibooks or Wikiversity, where a comparator can add extra commentary about the differences. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I have created what I think can be a model of an annotation pointing out an error-of-fact in an obituary. See Jersey Journal/1914/R. V. Schuyler. If we were to let it go unrecognized, we allow it to be used as a reference for Wikipedia with the error intact. I leave the error intact, mark it with "[sic]" and add a note below the license template, so no one would think it was part of the original text. Most people at Wikisource are transcribing fiction, so this would not be a part of their transcriptions. --RAN (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Does anybody maintain the IA upload tool?[edit]

task T276222 task T276648 I've been having many issues with the IA upload tool and I've opened phab tickets for them. However, they seem to be just sitting idly. How long does it usually take to fix the tool? Languageseeker (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It depends, sometimes months, sometimes years :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Just like anything else in phabricator. Sometimes you just have to befriend a developer the right way. It is why there is a wishlist survey every year or so. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. A bit frustrating, but that’s that how work. Time to make friends with a dev. Languageseeker (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

San Diego Union/1915/Cause of Taliaferro's Death Plunge Mystery to Airmen[edit]

I removed the "unlinked" tag from San Diego Union/1915/Cause of Taliaferro's Death Plunge Mystery to Airmen because it is now automatically linked at San Diego Union, however because I used the autolinking process that comes with the periodical header, it will not appear in "what links here". Are we requiring hand-made bulleted links, so articles do not get slapped with the "unlinked" tag? Or is the tag asking me to create an entry for the article in Wikidata? --RAN (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I think linking to it from San Diego Union is sufficient, since it can now be reached. However San Diego Union is itself functionally unlinked (the only links come from its own child pages). Probably it should be linked from Portal:Newspapers and Portal:California#San_Diego, as well at categorised to Category:Newspapers of California. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 11:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Typically I just stick in previous = [[../../]]billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Deprecation of the Special:Book tool[edit]

I think now that the ebook exporter is working rather nicely, we should look at deprecation of the PediaPress Special:Book tool.

It has been functionally broken (the only think that works is the link to PediaPress for buying a book) for a very long time and, as far as I know, there is no effort being made to unbreak it. As it is, it just clutters the sidebar and de-emphasises the (working) WS-export links.

Furthermore, the Wikisource:Books is confusing, as all the entries are useless when the tool is broken. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation downloads[edit]

Is there any way to deactivate the big "Download" button on disambiguation pages, or do we want those to be downloadable? Visually, the button implies that the disambiguation page is a work in its own right. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It should be easy to code to deactivate, they have __DISAMBIG__wikicode and are automatically categorised. I don't think that people would need to download, though at the same time it is out of the way of the body so not causing issues. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
This is phab:T273708 and the idea is that when done it will provide a magic word that we can add to templates like {{disambiguation}}. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 20:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: The same issue applies to Versions pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Leave this with the phabricator ticket for further resolution. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


When I asked previously about Wikilinks, I was told not to overlink, and no interpretive links. The example given was linking "Lewis Carroll best known book" to "Alice In Wonderland" because it is a subjective interpretation that can change over time. Why are my links to real objective people and real objective places being deleted? Again, this feels like tag-team harassment. Especially when I am probably going to be the only person on Earth using the entry for research over the next decade. --RAN (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The links that I removed were all going off-site and not here on Wikisource. A Wikisource page should have minimal linking in the text, except to authors and other works. Links within text to Wikidata items are outside the intention of the Wikilinks policy (which was written before Wikidata existed). Links within text to Wikipedia are covered in the policy. "Myrtle Avenue" (to pick a random example) can reasonably be assumed by the intelligent reader to be a residential street based on the context. I intended my edit to be an exemplar of good practice, but I see you have just pasted your version over the top of my edit and removed the layout formatting I had done at the same time. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Fiction and non-fiction should not be treated the same. No links may be good for fiction, but for non-fiction news articles, Coroner Rollins really is somebody, there is no speculation, it is not a roman à clef like Primary Colors where people endlessly speculate who corresponds to the fictional person portrayed. I can see where the London of Alice in Wonderland, may not be the real London, it may exist only as a fictional London. Non-fictional news-articles are different, and the reader loses, when the real historical Coroner Rollins is not identified and linked to his entry in Wikidata. I can search for all the entries for "Coroner Rollins" even if he is called "Aaron Burr Rollins" in another article or called "Sheriff Rollins" using insource. Fictional speculation should not be treated the same as identifying real people in news-items. The reader should get help and identify Moscow as "Moscow, Idaho" and not "Moscow, Russia" or "Moscow, Tennessee" or "Moscow, Kansas". People read fiction for entertainment, people read the news-articles because they are researching someone for a Wikipedia article or a Wikidata entry or a class paper, or a Ph.D. thesis. The links are part of being scholarly. No one is forced to click through to Wikidata, I have been reading from the Wiki Universe for about 20 years and I never felt compelled to click on a link I had no interest in, or was distracted by a word in blue instead of black. But I have come across places like "Myrtle Avenue" (to pick your random example) in news articles, and wondered if it was the same Myrtle Avenue from another news article I read earlier. --RAN (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I have on my todo list trying to gain support for revisiting our linking policy. It is confusingly written and as written it excludes links to Wikipedia that were actually explicitly supported in the discussions leading up to it. I want to revise it to allow links to Wikipedia but to limit under what circumstances they can be used. It would seem sensible in such an effort to also address Wikidata and interlanguage links to other Wikisources. Possibly to explicitly outlaw them, but also possibly to explicitly allow them under certain constraints. For Wikidata, for example, we migh require the use of a template that has logic like "Link to Author: page if it exists, otherwise to Wikipedia article if one exists, otherwise add a tooltip with the Wikidata ID or a summary card of the Wikidata entity, and add the page to a tracking category" (randomly picked off the top of my head; community discussion would be needed to determine the details). My main goal would be to make the policy much clearer as to what is allowed, what is not allowed, and why. --Xover (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I prefer linking to Wikidata because the links are more stable. In Wikipedia people are constantly being moved from name to name, and redirects are not always left behind to create a synonym. Especially where there might be a dozen people with the same name. "John Smith (politician)" might be moved to "John Smith (lawyer)" or "John Smith (New Jersey politician)" or "John Smith (mayor)" and a different person then occupies the previous "John Smith (politician)" or it may become a disambiguation page. Link rot is higher in Wikipedia. Usually the bare minimum information is just what I am looking for, not a full biography. Locations in Wikipedia are more stable. What do you think? Will the new rules allow a choice between Wikidata and Wikipedia by the person doing the transcribing, or will we insist on a Wikipedia link? --RAN (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Without thinking in depth about it I suspect I would actually disagree with you on that, but that would in any case be up to the community to decide iff there was support for revising that policy. As it stands it certainly doesn't allow them. --Xover (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Without wishing to get too bogged down in details, using the WD Q-id probably is the most reliable link target, and because we have JS and Lua access to Wikibase, it means that we can actually be much smarter about where we link to (i.e. fall back though Author/Portal, Wikipedia, then Wikidata, as well as show WS interwikis contextually—handy for foreign authors that we won't likely have here for a long old time). I would also say that, unless the user specifically asks for it (e.g. by clicking a Wikidata icon) delivering a user directly to Wikidata, as opposed to, say, Wikipedia, is a last resort, and that keeping them on Wikisource is preference when possible. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, we should bear in mind that Wikidata hardly existed when most of this policy (such that it is) was written, and the ability to use Lua to deal with that data in a more sane way is even more recent. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
And I agree with the policy of not overlinking, no need to link to commons words, you usually only need to link to a person, or place name, the first time they are mentioned in a news-article. I agree with the policy of about being vigilant with speculative links within fictional works per my examples above. --RAN (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Xover: Can you quote me exact phrase at Wikisource:Wikilinks that bans links to Wikidata. I see a ban on "interpretive links" to things like "favorite book", I can see where two people would interpret "favorite book" differently, or that it may change over time. I see a ban on links external to the Wikimedia Universe. That makes sense because of link rot being detrimental to long term stability. I can see the possibility for controversy over adding links within fictional works. --RAN (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @RAN: Sure. It's Links to Wikimedia-project pages are acceptable and considered to be annotations. [my emphasis]. The key here is that the linking policy says Wikimedia links are "acceptable" and in the same breath that they are "annotations". And annotations are, according to to the annotations policy, not allowed in works. In other words, the text that is phrased as if it is saying such links are ok is actually saying they're forbidden. This is incredibly confusing and nearly impossible to figure out without assistance (I had to have it explained to me after I had merrily added Wikipedia links to works for a good long while). --Xover (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Then it is a good time to revisit policy pages, two policy pages I am constantly referred to, were marked "draft" and "essay". Eventually all lists of laws become self-contradictory when you have enough of them. --RAN (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Also to make it even more of a mess, WS:ANN has never graduated to policy, it's still a proposal! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Xover: The most recent ruling based on a consensus RFC was in 2013 and reads: "Wikilinks are annotations and are allowed in Wikisource. The creation of wikilinks is optional, where created they should be based on context, the type of work and the likely reader. There are a number of ways wikilinks could be miss-used (interpretative vs. non-interpretative) and a separate discussion will identify acceptable types of wikilinks." (2013) --RAN (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
This is why I hope people will support the interaction ban between myself and the person with admin rights who keeps enforcing their personal preferences as if it were !Wikilaw. There are plenty of other people to patrol new entries that can interact with me. --RAN (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@RAN: As I wrote above, annotations are indeed permitted, but only in specially labelled separate copies of works and only when a complete unannotated version exists. The policy doesn't permit annotations (in the form of the links in question) in regular works. --Xover (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
You have said that multiple times, but the ruling makes no mention of the phrase "specially labelled separate copies of works" or anything that resembles that wording. --RAN (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Show us an example of where this is done. Showing how it should be done, rather than describing how it should be done, will make it clear to everyone. We are arguing over contradictory wording on multiple RFCs and essays and draft policy pages. One good example will make it clear. I am still not sure if the "complete unannotated version" you are referring to is the scan of the original document, or we are supposed to cut and paste the text twice in every entry, one with links and one without links. Are formatting changes also annotations? Is choosing the text size for a headline changing the urgency of a news article? Is it a type of annotation? Look at War! and War! and War!, the same word but the urgency is different. If we don't match the original exactly, is that annotation? Is not formatting a headline and just using the default ASCII text a type of annotation by changing the urgency of a headline? I am looking through all the news articles and many entries have not been formatted, they are just unformatted ASCI cut and pasted text. --RAN (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
One more point. If we ban wikilinking in the body of entries, there is really no point having the entry here. The only point of bringing a text into the WikiUniverse is to be able to link to Wiktionary, Commons, and Wikidata. Almost every text already exists elsewhere on the web via Internet Archive or Google Books. --RAN (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

UncategorizedPages on Wikisource[edit]

I was looking to see if wikisource had any sources in the Javanese language. A search on the term "Javanese" brought up several hundred pages, however when I tried to find out what category(ies) these pages belonged to I discovered many were not categorized. I then checked Special:UncategorizedPages and I see that the number of UncategorizedPages is quite large.

Just wondering if this is by design, or just lack of enough volunteers to tackle the problem? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Several factors. Primarily, the special page is not designed for how Wikisource operates. Page: and Index: ns pages (our workspace) typically do not need categorisation; they are not seen as display pages, and generally only need categorisation with maintenance categories where it is required. We would normally only categorise subpages where they are different from the category of the work, so many subpages show. There is no means to have the special category display in main namespace works only nor to filter out subpages. Then often it is wrong as there are categories and it just doesn't sense it properly. Hence we are where we are. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Then we possibly have fallen into laziness, and some of the fiction categorisation is not necessarily helpful. Displaying a listing of works in Category:Short stories is of limited value. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Note that it would be of substantial value if the OPDS generator could present exportable works organised by category, like Feedbooks does ( Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
we also do not have a cadre hand creating and maintaining categorys. we could do some things, organize cleanup and search, but would need a quality circle to implement. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 15:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Something that can be done right now is to watch New Texts as they are listed on the main page, then add suitable categorization for form, topic, etc. Quite often the only categorization these pages have when they are first listed are the automatic date and copyright categorization. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls[edit]

Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls has ballooned to over 700 pages, but looking at pages like Federal Reporter/First series/Volume 64 and Delaware Code/Title 4, I am not seeing any sort of duplicated parameters. This leads me to believe that false positives are being generated by templates on these pages, perhaps in the {{Header}} or {{Process header}} or {{Incomplete}} templates. BD2412 T 17:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It will be something related to {{header}} or its modules, as that is where Inductiveload has been making the recent changes. — billinghurst sDrewth
I'm not sure that is true. AFAIK, it's not possible to call a template from Lua with duplicate arguments, because a Lua table can't have duplicate keys and tables are how you call frame:expandTemplate, so it must be an issue higher up than the modules.
Furthermore, very many items "in" this category are not actually in the category when you look at them (including your two example), so the category page itself appears to be/have been stale. The category itself seems to have shrunk again to ~75 entries, all of which, so far, have had valid issues (or transclude pages that do). I haven't changed anything, perhaps someone else has? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Module talk:Pagetype/testcases gives every appearance of managing that feat from Lua. I couldn't be arsed to figure out just how it does it, since the thing needs to be taken out back in any case. But if you want to dig… --Xover (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: OK, so you can do it with frame:preprocess, (in this case {'|page=Page talk:Example|page=custom text', 'custom text'},) but none of the modules I've messed with do that, because they call expandTemplate, which take a table, rather than taking manually-constructed wikicode but I haven't always been so tidy with constructing HTML tags. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 00:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
@BD2412: (CC Inductiveload since they were pinged) Most of this was just stale links tables, so touching the pages in the cat fixed it. It's possible the stale category association was caused by some of the header changes recently, but that's impossible to tell after the fact. In any case, the cat is down to ~75 entries now, and these appear to be legitimate instances of duplicate arguments. I've done some manual cleaning and these should be eminently fixable by hand. People may also want to watchlist this cat and fix any new entries as they are added. --Xover (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Format help[edit]

Hi, can someone show me the correct format for inset text blocks like in the 3 un-validated pages of Index:Creole Sketches.djvu?

P.S. Why am I able to see whether edits are patrolled in Recent Changes? I'm just a User. It's a bit jarring to see the red exclamation mark next to all my edits. Ultimateria (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ultimateria: I've set the poems on those three pages for you, but have not changed the page status. In re seeing the patrolled status on Recent Changes. This is a default setting for all signed-in users. I think you can turn it off in Preferences. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

"Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" status confusion[edit]

Looking at the index, it appears Gentlemen Prefer Blondes has been completely validated. Yet when you look at where the work is transcluded on site, it says "not proofread", and there is no indicator on site that the text has been completed. I don't understand what happened. (SurprisedMewtwoFace (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC))

@SurprisedMewtwoFace: The "badge" at Wikidata hadn't been updated. I have updated it, and that adds it to Category:Validated texts.
And before anyone asks, yes, in theory it is possible to generate a list (and or auto-fix) this case (Index proofread/validated but the mainspace page isn't in the correct category), but it's not a totally trivial task. Not least because not all indexes are connected to mainspace pages via Wikisource index page (P1957), so it would involve traversing the links at Wikisource, or making sure the Index:mainspace mapping is captured at Wikidata as a first step. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Thanks so much! It's much clearer now. The only remaining issue is that it doesn't link directly to the title itself. It appears as "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" (1926) and the link to the book still isn't active per se through Anita Loos' author page. I think this is because the edition was the 1926 one rather than the 1925 one. However, it should now be clear to everyone that the text is completely validated. (SurprisedMewtwoFace (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC))
@SurprisedMewtwoFace: It should be linked now from Author:Anita Loos. This should have been done right off the bat, but was evidently overlooked. I have also transcluded the copyright page to make it clearer why this is (1926) but the title page say 1925. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Thanks! (SurprisedMewtwoFace (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC))