From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created on 01 June 2021, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Mass rollback request[edit]

Can someone just rollback every single edit I made after

Somehow in trying to update something, it just broke here Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes/Chronological Table/Edw4

As I no longer have time, patience or expertise to track down precisely what wentwrong, The simplest answer is just to have the whole effort rollbacked en-masse, despite it for the most part actually working.

If someone has the time to find the typing error, (with no documentation, comments etc.) because that almost certainly what's caused it to be broken, you are welcome to, but I have had it with trying to actually contribute until I can actually rely on being able to do things without continually creating headaches for myself or other contributors to resolve.

I'd like to however thank other contributors here for their support, on past efforts however.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Reverting is easy. Do you need help trying to figure out this table? —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes. I'd like to know is why the Transclude wasn't working properly, It is almost certainly a typo on my part, somewhere. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Also Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes/Chronological Table/Cha2. It would be nice to know WHY. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
What seems to be going on in Page: namespace as well is various interactions of blank characters (like spaces and line-feeds), with various parts of the header and sectionalisation. I've in the past asked for what the precise handling is to be DOCUMENTED, but no one has done so yet :( Sigh ) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I found the issues.. I'd not been setting up the transcludes correctly. No need to rollback now as I am getting it working very nicely :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes/Chronological Table/23Geo2 - What went wrong here? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Note to self : Check that you've paired tags properly... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 07:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Merge Portal:Dodd, Mead & Company and Portal:Dodd, Mead, and Company[edit]

For some reason these were made as two separate portals when they are the exact same company. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: this is probably a WD mess too. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes check.svg merged No WD mess, no-one had attached it. I really encourage people to attach portals in WD using the WP article as a guide. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 22:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The Wonderful Visit[edit]

The Wonderful Visit should be moved to The Wonderful Visit (1895) to disambiguate from The Wonderful Visit (Atlantic Edition). Languageseeker (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

already Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 07:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 07:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Stella Dallas (Prouty)[edit]

@Billinghurst: Please move this to Stella Dallas (Prouty, 1923) because Stella Dallas (Prouty) needs to become a versions page. Stella Dallas (Prouty, 1925) is going to be published on Wikisource within the next few days. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Typically we would wait until the other version exists, and that is our preference. Noting that I added publisher name to title as they are so close, and as different publishers there is obviously something else at play. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 07:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Error on Main Page[edit]

Can someone help fixing the "Lua error" in Module:Monthly Challenge statistics? Many thanks for debugging a component of our main page.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@廣九直通車. The "responsible parties" have been notified, and knowing them they'll probably fix it in short order (modulo IRL, timezones, etc.). :) Worst case I can try tracing my way through the code at some point over the next 24–48 hours (superficially it doesn't look like it'll be too too hard to fix, but…). Xover (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I think I may have fixed this accidentally by prodding a cronjob before seeing this message. I will attempt to figure out what was actually exploding and hopefully it'll all go off on time next month. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 11:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Revert my edits on Index:Works of Thomas Carlyle - Volume 03.djvu[edit]

Can an administrator revert my edits on Index:Works of Thomas Carlyle - Volume 03.djvu that I recently did. I tried updating the source file and then shifting the pages and I didn't work out.

Page:Works of Thomas Carlyle - Volume 03.djvu/13
Page:Works of Thomas Carlyle - Volume 03.djvu/11
Page:Works of Thomas Carlyle - Volume 03.djvu/10
Page:Works of Thomas Carlyle - Volume 03.djvu/20
Page:Works of Thomas Carlyle - Volume 03.djvu/21

Languageseeker (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: It's not clear to me what you want done, or what you need an admin for. You can undo your own edits on any page, and you can even undo most page moves (just so long as the automatically created redirect doesn't have any additional edit history). Is the issue that the source file has been updated and the Page: pages are no longer aligned with the scan? Xover (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This got taken care of. Thanks. ! Languageseeker (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
If you want to see your page moves special:log/move/Languageseeker and they should have a "revert" link; they do for admins. It will create the redirect, and if you want that deleted then you will need to request those with {{sdelete}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Over 3000 pages processed in the first-ever Monthly Challenge[edit]

Emoji u1f389.svg

The May Monthly Challenge is now complete and the numbers are in: 3122 pages were processed (marked no text, proofread or validated), which is more than 50% over the tentative goal of 2000 and represents an average velocity of over 100 pages/day. The following works were fully proofread:

And the following validated:

As well as quite some progress on other volumes in the challenge. New works in June include:

Thank you to everyone taking part, and here's to 4000 pages in June (for you northern hemisphere people tempted by nice weather: ignore that horrid glowing yellow sphere in the sky. It'll give you cancer, stay in and read books on the Internet!). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a fantastic initiative, thanks to those who organised. Given WS can be overwhelming and difficult to find your way around at first, I think this has great potential to make contributing easier and more rewarding. Nickw25 (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-23[edit]

20:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Plato volumes[edit]

I was sifting through the philosophy section and saw that books of Plato's dialogues, at least the 5 volume Jowett translations (which are all empty indices, Index:The Dialogues of Plato v. 1.djvu and so on), have at least one redundant copy, being Index:02 Jowett Plato Facsimile Vol2.pdf, from which Euthyphro and Apology (Plato) is transcluded from into mainspace. Should the proofread and transcribed pages from the PDF moved to the more complete 5 vol DJVUs, and the mainspace pages be transcluded from the moved pages? Thanks, EggOfReason (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I would check to see which scan is of the best quality and migrate content to that copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

line spacing on Polytonic block[edit]

Could someone correct the line spacing on Template:Polytonic block? It produces a larger gap between the first and second line in a block than between subsequent lines, as shown below.

ὄλβου καὶ πλούτου δώσω περικαλλέα ῥάβδον,
χρυσείην, τριπέτηλον, ἀκήριον ἥ σε φυλάξει,
πάντας ἐπικραίνουσ᾽ οἴμους ἐπέων τε καὶ ἔργων
τῶν ἀγαθῶν, ὅσα φημὶ δαήμεναι ἐκ Διὸς ὀμφῆς.

Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: This is another fun manifestion of MediaWiki's rather trigger-happy approach to P-tags. Basically, if the template looks like this:
then the output looks like this:
  Line 1<br>
    Line 2<br>
Whereas if the template looks like this:
then the output looks like this:
    Line 1<br>
    Line 2<br>
The MediaWiki skin adds top/bottom margins of 0.5em to P-tags by default, so the former ends up placing that margin between Line 1 and 2.
I have changed the template to align with most other block templates like {{larger block}} which also add the newline after <div>. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Should poor quality of an image be preserved in works?[edit]

If there is a version of an image that is in color, but the original text contains a version of the image in black and white, should the black and white image be used over the colored one? Or should we be aiming for textual accuracy by showing the image that originally appeared there, in its original state?

A specific example: @Languageseeker: recently added a colored version of the frontispiece to Resurrection Rock (1920). I really appreciate that he found the original painting of this image and it is beautiful, and I think it should be on Wikimedia Commons for sure. But my only concern is that it does not appear in color in this version of Resurrection Rock.

Another example is The Bloom of Monticello, which contains facsimiles of paintings in lower quality than the originals. In that work, I kept the images as they originally appeared. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Depends on the work In one work of recent origin (of a technical nature) I used color replacements because it was only the scan that was in monochrome.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I think about what the author's intent would have been. Would the author have intended to have full-color, high quality reproductions and were limited by the technology or did they incorporate such images for artist reasons. As a reader, I would rather see a high-resolution color version and I think that most authors would have preferred the same. Languageseeker (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: We also keep typographical errors though (except in rare circumstances), which were not intentional on the author's/publisher's part. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: I've struggled with the issue as well. I think both sides have valid arguments. For me, the major distinction is between technological limitations and errors. Black and White reproductions of paintings resulted from technological restrictions while typographical errors did not. I think it's important to note that in this case, the painting was commissioned specifically for Resurrection Rock. Languageseeker (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It really depends on the purpose of the text. In a book about painting, I would use higher quality color images, if they are available. If the image is intended to show detail in a part of the painting, I might stick with the original. If the image is a minor feature of the text, again I might use the original. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Depend on what the author's intent and Wikimedia Commons may consider having both colored and black & white. Some scans are photocopied from colored to black and white and if so proven, then having colored images may render black & white redundant.--Jusjih (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


Template Runningheader doesn't support anymore leading spaces in the parameters. {{Runningheader| left| center| right}} has for result:




and not




Is there a way to fix the template or the pages with this issue? --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@M-le-mot-dit: Try &nbsp; Tommy J. (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@M-le-mot-dit: In general, whitespace around parameters is pretty fragile (it's handled differently for positional vs named parameters, for a start). What are you trying to achieve? It's possible index CSS may be more appropriate if it's spacing-related. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
In fact these spaces are not useful; it was just clearer to separate parameters in long expressions. I have now to fix hundreds of page in Index:All the Year Round - Series 2 - Volume 1.djvu and I wonder if a bot may help me. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@M-le-mot-dit: if something is sitting in the header, my thought would be to just leave it. Someone can fix it when they validate the pages and there is no point in wasting good time for something that does not affect the transclusion. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: thanks for your suggestion. I'll fix validated pages and let the proofread pages for the future validation. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@M-le-mot-dit: Oh, I see, sorry I misunderstood the issue. I have adjusted the template to avoid this by using explicit named params to strip the whitespace. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload:. Excellent! Thanks for this improvement, because I don't remember if I have done the same elsewhere. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I see what @M-le-mot-dit: was attempting, and why I think. Leading spaces can be used with named parameters

{{RunningHeader|left= LEFT |center= CENTRE |right= RIGHT }}




but not positional (unnamed) ones. Fixing this is a trivial matter for a bot cleanup, doing it manually is not trivial. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It is a design feature of templates that named parameters work better in managing whitespace, and that positional parameters without the explicit parameter names (1=|2=|3=) just play differently. My point was that in headers in the page: ns we truly don't need to fuss. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@M-le-mot-dit: There are some places where the running header has been used in the body rather than in the header or footer, and therefore will be presented in the transcribed work.

@Billinghurst: Is there a way to search for uses of this template in the transcluded text for repair, without having to search for uses that are not transcluded? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Inductiveload has fixed the issue in the template itself; you can see in my example in the top of this section that there is no more difference with or without leading space. So there is no problem even when RunningHeader is used in the body of a discussion. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: I see a template count of (transclusions: 1,230,437, links: 125) all up, and in Main ns (transclusions: 4,031, links: 0) [7] and we don't know whether they are using the template name or a redirect, so would have to do a what transcluded these to 4000 main ns pages. With regard to header/body/footer, remember they don't actually exist, they are javascript display artefacts of wikitext, so no, I don't think that it is worth chasing down for a handful of possible cases of <pre> text displays. This belongs to our proofreading and validation process. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for eyeballs and editing => Wikisource:Do not move Index:, Page:, File: pages[edit]

Hi. I am preparing this document as a bit of an explanation essay and a bit of guidance. It is a rough draft and I would appreciate people adding to the document or adding annotations for components that need clarifying/modifying. Be as harsh/finicky as you like with it, it is formative and needs to be understandable to newer users. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

#wikisource IRC channel moved to[edit]

  • The #wikisource IRC channel recently moved from Freenode to Libera.Chat.
  • Register an account on Libera.Chat and join us there!
  • More information at m:IRC/Migrating to Libera Chat
  • Links around the place were changed recently.

billinghurst sDrewth 01:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: or whoever. Is this channel logged and moderated? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: We haven't logged the channel at this stage. Moderated? No, as a WMF-grouped channel it can be as required. It has m:wm-bot sitting in it, and is simply a channel. Last couple of days it has been Inductiveload educating me in css conversions of my works as I simplify the direct code in my previous ToC and put that into Index:(workname).css, and get them better "ready for export". [Must admit it makes ToC so much easier to navigate and proofread in the Page: ns. Thanks Inductiveload. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Suspected OCR errors[edit]

I've posted a list of suspected OCR errors on validated pages at User:Мишоко/Suspected OCR errors. Much work to be done for those interested. Мишоко (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Мишоко: Very good! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 08:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

transclusions as single page[edit]

I just created the index Index:My Disillusionment In Russia.djvu as a single page. The practice here is to subpage sections, even to the most discrete part (eg. tertiary works, and at least dictionary). A concern might be the generation of page structure for export, I don't know enough about that. Comments? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: On-wiki: it's had to go right to a given chapter because there is no TOC.
WRT to export:
  • This means there will be no Chapters in the document TOC: [8]. In conjunction with the lack of in-text TOC, there is no way at all to find a chapter in the epub (or PDF). There is no fundamental reason we can't deal with this a task to add the ability to add an in-page TOC that points to sections on the current page to the epub TOC.
  • If you do do this, you should probably add a {{page break}}, otherwise the chapters all run together, whereas you probably want each chapter to be a new page (this is normal in pretty much all real books and also ebooks). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-24[edit]

20:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Transclusion Problem[edit]

In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884)/Chapter 4, the first word is cut off on the transclusion, but not on the page scan. (It says Well in Page ns, but not in the transclusion.) Can somebody please take a look. Languageseeker (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It displays for me, same in both main and page: nss. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. It seems to work for every Layout, except Layout 2 (the default one). Which one are you using? Should I take a screenshot? Languageseeker (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker: May be due to the negative indent. Try something like "height1=177px|width1=100%|height2=30px|width2=300px|height3=440px|width3=324px" and no indent. --M-le-mot-dit (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The ELL is sitting up above the image in layout 2. People are just trying to be too clever. Keep it simple. There should be three images, not the one. The title, the image, and the W. Then you can use {{drop initial}}. We need something that works on computer monitors and phones, so trying to think that you can extract one image from a book and get image is just fooling oneself. KISS! — billinghurst sDrewth 16:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
{{overfloat image}} and {{flow under}} should be burnt at the stake, and if anyone wishes to hold to them while they are burning ... (well). They won't export nicely. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Find-and-replace across a whole work[edit]

Do we have a tool that can do find-and-replace operations across all the pages in a single work? I'm thinking of something analogous to VisualFileChange.js on Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

No automated bots that users can set and forget. Generally I would do a search and bot it. We can just load the special:prefixindex set of pages and bot them. Not hard. More whether we can get a good regex with little false positives. If you want something done then WS:BR. With regard to the script why don't you just load it in your common.js and see if will work for you. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
visualfilechange can do it on commons. but it was designed as a deletion tool, so not included here. maybe loading the javascript will work here [14] --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 12:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikimania 2021: Individual Program Submissions[edit]

Wikimania logo with text 2.svg

Dear all,

Wikimania 2021 will be hosted virtually for the first time in the event's 15-year history. Since there is no in-person host, the event is being organized by a diverse group of Wikimedia volunteers that form the Core Organizing Team (COT) for Wikimania 2021.

Event Program - Individuals or a group of individuals can submit their session proposals to be a part of the program. There will be translation support for sessions provided in a number of languages. See more information here.

Below are some links to guide you through;

Please note that the deadline for submission is 18th June 2021.

Announcements- To keep up to date with the developments around Wikimania, the COT sends out weekly updates. You can view them in the Announcement section here.

Office Hour - If you are left with questions, the COT will be hosting some office hours (in multiple languages), in multiple time-zones, to answer any programming questions that you might have. Details can be found here.

Best regards,

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

On behalf of Wikimania 2021 Core Organizing Team

OCR bot[edit]

Do I recall reading that someone has a bot that can populate pages with OCR text, and perhaps running headers, ready for proofing? Index:A Catalogue of the Birmingham Collection - 1918.pdf has over 1100 pages, and it would be good to get a help starting on them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Does the OCR not appear automatically once you edit the page? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes; that's not what I'm talking about Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Also not what you asked, but are you aware that the running header and footer can be inserted automatically as you go? A 'bot' could do that and save the page, is that what you want? I don't consider that as useful as the other methods of proofreading. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: I suspect what he is asking about is 'automatically' using Help:Gadget-ocr to create the pages with it's improved OCR, instead of just saving the garbage that is typically embedded in the file. Jarnsax (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I ran the OCR and fixed the running header on the first 50 pages or so for you. Definitely a work that will benefit from one person doing the majority of the actual transcription, for consistent table formatting. Feel free to poke at me for another batch.. far less tedious when you can do smaller batches somewhat automatically. Jarnsax (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Having run 110 or so pages of this, while a bot to perform the task might be useful in some cases, this isn't one of them. Tessaract is obviously quite confused by the page layout, seeing it as 'multi-column' instead of 'dictionary' about half the time, and so the text for the running header isn't reliably placed. To get a 'reliable' OCR would probably require manually futzing with the PDF to define text fields... not even remotely worth it. Jarnsax (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
yeah, this work will require a lot of table code. given the text layer typical output, might want to paste in a spreadsheet, to move cells around, and then into bot will not help. --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 01:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Editor parameter in "header" and its use on subpages[edit]

Hi. I would like for us to consider that the editor in {{header}} have advice that it should typically only be used at the top level (or volume level) of a work, and not need to be added to every subpage of a work, eg. for article level. We need to be keeping the subpages cleaner and only have the information that is specifically pertinent to the subpage, not filled with secondary information that is available higher in the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: allow bots the reupload-shared right[edit]

This will allow bots to be used to import files from Commons using the mw:Manual:Pywikibot/ script (which is currently broken, but I'm working on a fix).

Currently this right is disallowed except for admins.

@Xover: ping since you pointed me to this script. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Languageseeker (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm slightly ambivalent. There was a reason why this permission was only assigned to +sysop when added, and we don't do a great job of managing bot permissions currently. On the other hand there is limited harm that can be done with it, and we do have some vetting of +bot. Not having it would also prevent InductiveBot (and other bots) from localising files from Commons or require it to have +sysop just for those tasks. So on balance I land on support. Xover (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • not support proposal in current form. Firstly the pywikibot script doesn't even work for admins, and if an admin has the right to go and do it, then it is a pretty simple task once one is logged into toolforge; you don't need to activate a bot right.

    To the proposal, we don't have that many requests, and we don't have any backlog, so what is the justification for such a significant change? I do not wish to have all bots with unlimited right to transfer files from Commons, and if we were to progress I would want to see controls over that ability. Remembering that what this is doing is also removing a file from Commons, and that should never be an unregulated right. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I've fixed (well, pending) the script.
  • Also, the script only deletes the file if moving to Commons and if the user has delete at the source wiki. Since I'm not asking for the delete right, (and I don't even have it myself at Commons) this is doubly moot if running a non-sysop bot account and moving from Commons.
  • The justification is not having to perform batch imports actions as a sysop, but instead under a normal bot account. Since bots are have a process to gain their flag, it's not like just anyone can do this; that's the control over the ability. Fundamentally, if someone wants to upload the files here, they can still do so with a bot account by messing with the filename (and or touching the file hash), so bot users already have the ability to make a mess and don't because then you get a rude message on your talk page and/or a -bot.
  • There's nothing wrong per se with doing it as a sysop on Toolforge, it's just a bit overpowered, IMO, and a (small) faff when I have my bot OAuthed locally (though now I have two sets of tokens, so it's not so bad). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
So you are saying that while it is called imagetransfer it is actually a replication, not a transferral. Okay, that is reassuring. With regard to the right, it would be better to have a group created and have the ability to have that right allocated, either to a bot, or to an individual. That gives a better control and overt permission to do an act, rather than as a hidden action (remember bots are generally hidden from RC). I would much rather have a light procedure in place where a 'crat (or maybe a sysop) grants the right to an account on public application, then it can be set to expire, and we don't have issues with bots just doing things. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
To be fairrrrrr the first line of the script doc is Script to copy images to Wikimedia Commons, or to another wiki.
A separate group makes sense too, but it would be best if it can be sysop-granted, I don't think it needs 'crat oversight (unless uploading these images is specifically harmful in a way I haven't realised?).
I mean, I can just upload them on my own account, but it means I have to bot-flag myself and then anything I do in the meantime is b. Or I spam RC with the images (in this case, >100). Neither of which is ideal, IMO. Unless we do say that image transfers shouldn't be done with a bot flag, and RC spam is OK in this case, just like local uploads, which is fine by me too, I don't really mind.
If "bots doing questionable things" is a issue, IMO we have bigger problems than just the possibility bot operators nefariously copying files from Commons. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Answer: Bots' actions are typically hidden from normal processes, so a modicum of caution/risk management and oversight is always best. I have seen bot access abused, and while I don't think that it will happen here, a light touch approval process is not a high hurdle. Plus this way, it can be given to those without bot rights however we so choose. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 2: create separate group[edit]

Okay suggest that the proposal becomes: Creation of a group called "upload shared" with the sole right of reupload-shared that can be added and removed by administrators and bureaucrats. We can then work out our procedures for how that is applied. We can say now explicitly that administrators can apply it to their bots as an extension of their rights; further detail to be confirmed by consensus, if community supports. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Annotation: Override files on the shared media repository locally (reupload-shared) which is required to move a file from Commons to enWS as normal rights will stop that happening due to the existence of the file at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support fine by me. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Proposing to close this request as having the community consensus for creation of a user group "upload shared" with both the sole right and addition/removal capability as described. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes check.svg requested at phab:T285130billinghurst sDrewth 08:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Mobile version => collapsed licences?[edit]

I am wondering for our works and our author pages whether we should collapse the visible licences. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

author categories[edit]

Can I get a pointer to discussion of the categories in the Author ns that concluded the construct category:X as authors was a good idea? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Check the archives for here over the last 18 months, the conversations were open for a long period. The basis was that we were getting a mix of authors and biographies in the categories, so they have been named overtly. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Blackletter looking horrid (UnifrakturMaguntia)[edit]

Anyone else currently finding blackletter difficult to read.

  • Hard to read Hard to read
  • Hard To Read Hard To Read

When I proofread works I have used it over the umpteen years and not had a problem. Looking at it today, this representation is awful. I have no idea where we look in the ULS system for the font history of UnifrakturMaguntia. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

we are at the mercy of a free font provider there are public domain fraktur fonts, but haven't found an accessible one. we need a special character set. german converts to latin, it is only english that continues to do mainly on title pages. (i thought the point was to make it hard to read) --Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 14:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Please provide input here or on Meta and during an upcoming Global Conversation on 26-27 June 2021 about the Movement Charter drafting committee[edit]

Hello, I'm one of the Movement Strategy and Governance facilitators working on community engagement for the Movement Charter initiative.

We're inviting input widely from users of many projects about the upcoming formation of the Movement Charter drafting committee. You can provide feedback here, at the central discussion on Meta, at other ongoing local conversations, and during a Global Conversation upcoming on 26 and 27 June 2021.

The Movement Charter drafting committee is expected to work as a diverse and skilled team of about 15 members for several months. They should receive regular support from experts, regular community reviews, and opportunities for training and an allowance to offset costs. When the draft is completed, the committee will oversee a wide community ratification process.

Further details and context about these questions is on Meta along with a recently-updated overview of the Movement Charter initiative. Feel free to ask questions, and add additional sub-sections as needed for other areas of interest about this topic.

If contributors are interested in participating in a call about these topics ahead of the Global Conversation on 26 and 27 June, please let me know. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The three questions are:

  1. What composition should the committee have in terms of movement roles, gender, regions, affiliations and other diversity factors?
  2. What is the best process to select the committee members to form a competent and diverse team?
  3. How much dedication is it reasonable to expect from committee members, in terms of hours per week and months of work?

Proposal: add a "project marker" to new works (e.g. PotM, MC, Wikiprojects) in {{new texts}}[edit]

Despite a small drama a couple of weeks ago over this subject, I think it would be worth having a way to show some new works have come out of a community project, such as WS:POTM, Monthly Challenge, or any other Wikiproject that produces a proofread work. Specifically, it should link to the project in question to drive traffic to that project and allow the project participants to see their project's successes advertised.

Perhaps some fairly discrete inline tag that obviously not part of the work title: PotM (just an example, please don't bikeshed the exact formatting!). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: Are you thinking of something that is logged within Wikidata through their d:Help:Badges as is the desired means to mark proofread and validated works? Or were you just wanting something local. Something that differentiates projects, or specific per project. Were you thinking something built into header templates? Root level, root level and subpages; or root talk page?

Further, what is your justification for driving people to projects for completed works? What do you think that it will achieve? Why do you see that project-produced works deserve that over single works?. I don't personally see that completed project works particularly need any special recognition post completion, well nothing more special than any other completed work. I would say feel welcome to develop something that sits on talk pages that allows works to be linked to projects, to be called up easily, otherwise there is nothing special about these works compared to any other work. Well nothing that warrants more recognition than something completed by a person or a couple of people outside of a project. At the moment our works are tagged with badges as delivered from WD records for Proofread/Validated, FT, and I would prefer to keep our header tagging to the badges, and to tag quality of works. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Sorry, that wasn't clear, I mean in {{new texts}}, not on the mainspace pages or in the headers.
The idea is to show people that there are organized subprojects working on $whatever and that the projects are active (because otherwise they wouldn't be producing a new work) and available to join in. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 11:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: I think that having some display options of what you are proposing in "new texts" sandbox would give the community an idea of the sort of thing, and the elegance that can be produced. It may also be opportune for us to think what else that template could easily and neatly do without overcrowding it, or making it ugly. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Something (very roughly like Template:New texts/sandbox. Obviously exact styling is flexible, but it's a bit soon for nitpicking over that. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this will help bring attention to community collaborations and reward users who participate in them. Languageseeker (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this helps promote the value of contributions to the collaborations and demonstrates to newcomers in particular that their contributions can quickly make it into a compiled product. One of the challenges with WS is that you can make contributions to an index that years later still isn't completed or transcluded. For some people, this extended time from contribution to realised product perhaps reduces engagement (I know it does for me). Nickw25 (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On frwikisource, works in the New Texts section of the page produced by Mission 7500 are marked with: {{e|{{vert|Mission 7500}}}} which produces: Mission 7500 . I do not know how long this marker has been in place, but it has been there since at the very most, January 2019. CVValue (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-25[edit]

15:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

em-dash at page wrap[edit]

How can we suppress a space at the start of a page, when the preceding page ended with a character such as an em-dash? for example, the start of page 26 on /Report renders as "Steam.— Should" when "Steam.—Should" is wanted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: You need to use {{peh}} (page-end-hyphen) to do that. It's the same way you'd keep the hyphen in the word "over-eager" being split over a page break. See H:HYPHEN for more details. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing news 2021 #2[edit]

14:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)