Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2022-03

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

Beasts of Tarzan validation

I have validated all I can on Beasts of Tarzan. The final pages are advertisements, and I was the one who proofread them, so I can't validate them. Would someone else like to validate them, or should the book be listed as validated now that the text of the novel itself is complete? SurprisedMewtwoFace (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The advertisements are not required to mark the work as validated, so go ahead and do that. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! SurprisedMewtwoFace (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I have marked it as validated and listed it as March 2022, but it still doesn't appear on the list of completed texts in the Monthly Challenge for some reason. SurprisedMewtwoFace (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Done @SurprisedMewtwoFace: The final status of the work on the Monthly Challenge’s current module page also needs to be updated, which I have now done. The Beasts of Tarzan is now listed under validated and completed works. Ciridae (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
@Ciridae Thanks! SurprisedMewtwoFace (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Ciridae (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

February Monthly Challenge

Gather round to hear the tale of the February Monthly Challenge. For the first time, over 100 pages were proofread everyday. In total, 6976 pages were either proofread or validated contributing to 36.28% of all pages in these categories during February. Among the highlights were

...and many more.

This month, a plethora of works are available to all

and many more...

So head over to the Monthly Challenge and join the fun. Languageseeker (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-11/1 and United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-11/L.1

The history of the latter page should be merged into the former one. —— Eric Liu（留言．百科用戶頁） 04:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Consistent quotation marks

In Index:Zakhar Berkut(1944).djvu, some pages use " " and ' ', while others use “ ” and ‘ ’. At first, I was using " ", but then I saw some other pages used “ ”, so I switched to that. But now I see there are more pages early in the book with " ". Which is preferred? I can go through and switch them all to be consistent if desired. (The actual text uses “”.) 70.172.194.25 00:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

And now I encountered many validated pages in a row with smart quotes. That may be the most common choice; so far, only a few pages near the start use straight quotes. 70.172.194.25 00:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The guideline here is to be consistent across a work. When a work is being proofread by multiple wikisourcerors (e.g. in the Monthly Challenge), there should be a note made on the Index talk: page about what the style is to be for the particular work and everyone working on that work is expected to follow the style. If there are lots of pages that have the other style, then we can get a bot to run over the completed pages to make it consistent. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
yeah, depending on the ocr, you can get curly or straight quotation marks. and the typed in tend to be straight. we do not have a preference, unlike the wikipedias. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 16:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The Call for Feedback: Board of Trustees elections is now closed

Hi all - as a follow-up to #Call for Feedback about the Board of Trustees elections is now open: the call is now closed and reports are available for review. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages • Please help translate to your language

The Call for Feedback: Board of Trustees elections is now closed. This Call ran from 10 January and closed on 16 February 2022. The Call focused on three key questions and received broad discussion on Meta-wiki, during meetings with affiliates, and in various community conversations. The community and affiliates provided many proposals and discussion points. The reports are on Meta-wiki.

This information will be shared with the Board of Trustees and Elections Committee so they can make informed decisions about the upcoming Board of Trustees election. The Board of Trustees will then follow with an announcement after they have discussed the information.

Thank you to everyone who participated in the Call for Feedback to help improve Board election processes.

Best regards,

Movement Strategy and Governance
Xeno (WMF) (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Voting has begun! UCoC Enforcement guidelines ratification voting open from 7 to 21 March 2022

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

The ratification voting process for the revised enforcement guidelines of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) is now open! Voting commenced on SecurePoll on 7 March 2022 and will conclude on 21 March 2022. Please read more on the voter information and eligibility details.

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire movement. The revised enforcement guidelines were published 24 January 2022 as a proposed way to apply the policy across the movement. You can read more about the UCoC project.

You can also comment on Meta-wiki talk pages in any language. You may also contact the team by email: ucocproject(_AT_)wikimedia.org

Sincerely,
--BPipal (WMF) (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Movement Strategy and Governance
Wikimedia Foundation

Tech News: 2022-10

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

  • There was a problem with some interface labels last week. It will be fixed this week. This change was part of ongoing work to simplify the support for skins which do not have active maintainers. [1]

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 8 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 9 March. It will be on all wikis from 10 March (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

21:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Transclusion of North and South (First Edition) or any other multi-volume novel

So a debate has arisen over the transclusion of North and South (First Edition). At first, the main page had an AuxToc that pointed to the volumes. Then a user decided to condense all the TOCs from the volumes onto the main page. I reverted the change and got reverted. The reverter expressed their belief that if an AuxTOC points to a page with another AuxTOC, then the second AuxTOC will not get exported. Calibre does not confirm this behavior. So what is the stance on this, can a multi-volume work be listed as multiple volumes or do all the TOCs have to be condensed on the root page? Languageseeker (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

There isn't a single correct way. Long novels in the 19th Century were frequently published in two or three volumes for practical reasons. The volumes were available for purchase simultaneously, and are therefore a single work from our perspective. In these it would make sense to have the contents all on the mainpage. (Ergo, Paul Clifford). When the volumes of a work were published at different times (putting aside serial publication, which is a different beast altogether), then we would need separated lists. In the end, it comes down to what makes sense, what's practical and what actually works for a download. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle In this particular case, the work was first transcluded as a multi-volume work and the download worked. Then a user edited it to create a single page-TOC that did omitted some of the material from book, which I reverted, and then an administrator reverted my revert. I'm trying to establish community consensus. If it's acceptable to have a multi-volume work, then was the administrator's revert a misunderstanding? Languageseeker (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The download worked for Languageseeker, but did not work for me. With only links to "Volume I" and "Volume II" or the work's main page, using the Download feature displayed in the top right corner produced only a table of contents, but none of the chapters in the download. I do not know how Languageseeker managed to make the download work. It sounded to me as though he is using a third-party program to grab the download. For a typical user wanting to download a novel, they will use the built-in download feature from the page, and will be confused and disappointed if they do not get a complete download. We have had readers complain in the past when a work with this issue appeared on the Main Page. For this work, "a user" was the same person who had created the Contents and all of the chapter transclusion pages. The reason "a user" decided to condense all the TOCs from the volumes onto the main page was that I pointed out to them that this approach would not permit users to download the novel. They would have to know to go to Volume I and do a download, then go to Volume II and do a download, which most users would not think of doing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
And as Beeswaxcandle has pointed out, there is no single "correct" way. In this instance, the person who set up the work agreed with my assessment and chose to transclude all the chapters on the primary page. The first involvement from Languageseeker was to step in and revert their work, and tell them (erroneously) that this is not acceptable [2]. This approach is acceptable, and often desirable for multi-volume novels.
Neither volume has a table of contents, so it's going to have to have an AuxToC, and both volumes were published in the same year. Beeswaxcandle pointed out that in such an instance "it would make sense to have the contents all on the mainpage," so why do you think I had some kind of "misunderstanding"? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey North and South was proofread and transcluded as part of the MC which I have been running. There, the standard is to transclude multi-volume works into separate volumes which is how I set up North and South and Chrisguise originally transcluded it. Then, they decided to combine the AuxTOC without putting all the material in the volumes into a single-issue work. They also did not remove the AuxTOC from the Volume pages, see North and South (First Edition)/Volume 1 and North and South (First Edition)/Volume 2 or include all the sections in the single AuxTOC. The combined AuxTOC has made things worse and more inconsistent which is why I reverted it. So, I'm asking you what is the advantage of a single AuxTOC if a multi-volume one does not break downloads? Languageseeker (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The fact that you are running a collaboration project does not create Wikisource standards. There is no problem with having the AuxToc in two places. Your project does not override Wikisource practices, and the fact that you selected it for your project does not mean that the person who sets it up must meet your expectations. They must meet the requirements and expectations of Wikisource, not standards that you impose. It sounds as though you are forcing requirements on works by selecting them, without consulting with the larger community, and without regard for the people who are doing the actual work.
Question: exactly what content was not transcluded? You keep stating that something was not transcluded, but you won't say what that is.
And what is the advantage? It makes more sense to the reader, it allows a reader to find all the contents in a single placeand in this case, it makes a download possible from the work's main page, as I have said repeatedly. It also aligns with the advice given above by Beeswaxcandle, which you seem to have missed. Please answer the reverse question: what is the advantage of splitting the contents up across multiple pages? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey The number of volumes and whether the books was published in volumes is an important part of the publishing history. Many of the more popular books had multiple editions that are distinguishable by the number of volumes. As I pointed out, there was no problem with the download. As for what is missing, the front matter for Volume 1 and Volume 2 is missing and the advertisements for Volume 1 are missing. In the front matter for Volume 1, Gaskell explains that she changed the ending from the serialized form and her reason for doing so. As it stands, the single AuxTOC is incomplete. As Beeswaxcandle pointed out, there is no set standard. In essence, the standard seems to be whatever the user decides. Yes, I run the MC, but I'm trying to use it as a space to teach new users how things should be done. It increasingly seems to me that there is no such thing. Things are done however it pleases. Languageseeker (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
You have not answered my question: "what is the advantage of splitting the contents up across multiple pages?" Neither volume originally had a table of contents, so if the goal is to reproduce the original format, that is an argument for having no table of contents, not a reason for having multiple ToC. What is the advantage of multiple AuxToC?
You point out that there was no download problem for you. There was a download problem for me, and presumably for "a user", who made the changes after I pointed out the problem to him. The fact that you did not have a download problem is one data point, and does not mean that other users are not experiencing problems. The advertisements are not required in any transcription here at Wikisource. They are optional, as you yourself have pointed out before. The "front matter" is a title page, colophon, and note about the work's first appearance. These can be added to the combined AuxToC in multiple ways. The fact that an AuxToC is incomplete is a reason to amend it, not a reason to remove it. The fact that the work was published in two volumes can be pointed out in the Header notes; that is what they are there for.
And yes, there is not one "right" way to do everything here. I have told you that more than once, and Beeswaxcandle said exactly that above. There is much room for variation and different approaches, including having a single ToC for a multi-volume novel. If you plan to teach people how to do things, it is just as important to not teach them things that do not need to be taught and not force them to follow standards that are yours alone. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
From a export standpoint, both ways are valid. However, if you use the separate volumes method and you want to export both volumes together from the top page, you do need to make sure that links on the subpages are in a class=ws-summary container.
If all the links are on one page, you do not need this, but if you do have a ws-summary container anywhere on the page, you have to make sure all the links are contained in a ws-summary container.
{{TOC begin}}, {{AuxTOC}} and {{export TOC}} all set this, amongst others. More details at Help:Preparing for export.
Also, before assuming something is is or is not working, especially with regards to what pages are included in an export, do make sure that after your edits that you purge the export tool caches by adding "nocache=1" to the download URL.
And I repeat my usual opinion that reverting is an act of last resort. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Technical issue: Page numbers on the side completely broken

I checked on multiple browsers (Chrome, Chrome Incognito [testing logged out], Safari), and it seems that the pages in Page namespace are no longer showing up on the side of transcluded works. And in Homicide Act, 1957, for example, the text floated to the left goes past the normal space into the aside... Any ideas on what's going on? PseudoSkull (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

In fact everything seems broken... Headers being on the bottom doesn't happen anymore, you can't choose layouts, none of that. Seems like the JavaScript things broke... :( PseudoSkull (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I also see no page numbers, and have lost the options to Purge or perform Null edits on pages. I am seeing the problem in Firefox, so it does not appear to be browser related. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

When I go to Preferences/Gadgets, I note that the list has vanished. This is where the Purge option could be turned on, and presumably the other things also live. I don't know where to look to investigate further. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Could some or all of these problems be caused by the changes mentioned in the #Coming soon that were scheduled to happen today? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I have the same problem. I've checked that Javascript is still enabled in Firefox, and also tried Edge. Both have the same problem, so presumably it's a site issue. Chrisguise (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay, to give the classic manager's question (before I go into a Zoom meeting IRL): has it been logged? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Seems to have started working properly again. Chrisguise (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Ditto for me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

help?

im new here, is their a layout page i can work with?? If im not being clear enough please let me know. Thank you.

Wythhgreat100 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The best way to learn how to do Wikisource editing, is to start with validating work that another editor has already proofread. Have a look at the yellow sections towards the end of Wikisource:Community collaboration/Monthly Challenge/March 2022 and see if there is a work that interests you. If there isn't, ping me on my User Talk: page with an indication of your areas of interest and I can point you towards works within those topics. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
This is very complicated, sorry but can I focus on new sources? Thank you. Wythhgreat100 (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
That's fine. Please see Help:Beginner's guide to adding texts for guidance as to what's needed for new works. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I have gone over it, im just not getting it, apologies. Wythhgreat100 (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
What work do you want to add to begin with? Where can I find the scan to upload? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
https://chicagobible.org/htdbv5/zwt0557.htm Wythhgreat100 (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Periodicals are extremely complicated works to start with if you're new. Is there a short work of interest to you? Things like novels are easy because they typically require little formatting; also collections of short stories; or a short non-fiction text like a textbook or a set of essays or tracts. If you're just starting and feel overwhelmed, it's best to find something that is largely set in simple paragraphs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
(e/c) That's not a scan. However, I have found a scan of all of the 1887 issues in one volume at the Internet Archive. I've done steps 1 and 2 of the Beginner's guide for you and the work is at Index:Zion's Watchtower 1887.pdf waiting for you to carry on with step 3. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
you have a scan and index of vol. VIII no. 6; and the website is vol. IX no. 2. (i blame the metadata at IA) --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 22:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

ct ligature

I know that this is a tired topic, but hear me out: I have created Template:ct, which inserts the ordinary characters "ct" inside a <span> element which has the class "typographic-ct", which means that the ligature can be optionally enabled with CSS styles if the user has a font that is compatible with it. Quite a few have it as a historical ligature, so it's relatively straightforward for a user to enable it if they want. This feels like a reasonable way to implement it in an unobtrusive way that doesn't interfere with text search, Google searches etc. Theknightwho (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-11

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • In the Wikipedia Android app it is now possible to change the toolbar at the bottom so the tools you use more often are easier to click on. The app now also has a focused reading mode. [3][4]

Problems

  • There was a problem with the collection of some page-view data from June 2021 to January 2022 on all wikis. This means the statistics are incomplete. To help calculate which projects and regions were most affected, relevant datasets are being retained for 30 extra days. You can read more on Meta-wiki.
  • There was a problem with the databases on March 10. All wikis were unreachable for logged-in users for 12 minutes. Logged-out users could read pages but could not edit or access uncached content then. [5]

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 15 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 16 March. It will be on all wikis from 17 March (calendar).
  • When using uselang=qqx to find localisation messages, it will now show all possible message keys for navigation tabs such as "View history". [6]
  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights through their group memberships. Before, only those with the deleterevision right could access this special page. [7]
  • On the Special:Undelete pages for diffs and revisions, there will be a link back to the main Undelete page with the list of revisions. [8]

Future changes

Events

  • The Wikimedia Hackathon 2022 will take place as a hybrid event on 20-22 May 2022. The Hackathon will be held online and there are grants available to support local in-person meetups around the world. Grants can be requested until 20 March.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

22:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to join the first Wikisource Triage meeting on 21st March 2022

Hello everyone,

Sam Wilson and I are excited to share that we will be hosting regular Wikisource Triage meetings, starting from 21st March 2022.

These meetings aim to foster the growth of a technical community of Wikisource developers and contributors. The meetings will be primarily focused on identifying, prioritizing and estimating tasks on the All-and-every-Wikisource and ProofreadPage workboards (among others) on Phabricator and eventually reduce the backlog of technical tasks and bugs related to Wikisource by making incremental improvements to Wikisource infrastructure and coordinating these changes with the Wikisource communities.

While these meetings are technology focused, non-technical Wikisource contributors are also invited to join and share any technical challenges that they are facing and we will help them to create phabricator tickets. Newbie developers are also more than welcome!

The first meeting has been scheduled for 21st March 2022 at 10:30 AM UTC / 4:00 PM IST (Check your local time). If you are interested in joining the meeting, kindly leave a message on sgill@wikimedia.org and we will add you to the calendar invite.

Meanwhile, feel free to check out the page on Meta-wiki and suggest topics for the agenda.

On behalf of Sam Wilson and Satdeep Gill

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Seeking New Coordinator for the Monthly Challenge

I'm stepping down from running the Monthly Challenge. If anyone wants to take it over, feel free to do so. Languageseeker (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Languageseeker: I have created the new module page Module:Monthly_Challenge/data/2022-04 and the corresponding monthly overview, using works that were planned to be run in April as stated on the Nominations page Wikisource:Community_collaboration/Monthly_Challenge/Nominations.
Whenever I have the time, I'll be happy to contribute to running the challenge, but I don't plan to be the only one running it. Also, most probably, compared to Languageseeker, I have far less knowledge allowing me to decide on new relevant and interesting books to work on.--Tylopous (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I will try to help when I can, though I do not have a strong literary sense either.
Specific action point: I do plan to fix up the "make sure it's all set up nicely" script to run prior to the first of the month to avoid the nagging race conditions we see sometimes when the bot lags behind by a short while. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@Inductiveload @Tylopous Thank you for both volunteering to continue the Monthly Challenge. If I get the time, I might step in occasionally to contribute a bit. It'll probably be confined to mostly behind the scenes type of work. You're both much, much appreciated. Languageseeker (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Politicians as authors?

Hope this is a quick and easy question. Is it appropriate to add a politician under the author namespace to represent legislative texts they're responsible for writing? Potentially not the final acts because they're considered a work of government, but members bills and SOPs and such things like that. Supertrinko (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It's tricky, because in reality they almost certainly won't have written them. In the UK at least, even private members' bills are for the most part actually written by clerks in the Public Bill Office, and if they stand a chance of passing they'll also get reworked by the lawyers in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. The MP who actually submits it won't have done more than an outline.
The most accurate analogy is probably when a work has been commissioned. Theknightwho (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Really good point. Acts are a work of many people, and Bills are "owned" by a particular member, but yes you're right it's more reasonable to say "commissioned by". Thanks! Supertrinko (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-12

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

New code release schedule for this week

  • There will be four MediaWiki releases this week, instead of just one. This is an experiment which should lead to fewer problems and to faster feature updates. The releases will be on all wikis, at different times, on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. You can read more about this project.

Recent changes

Future changes

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Asking for advice on displaying transcluded three column pages

Starting with this Index page and the subsequent pages do not appear in alphabetical order when transcluded to the main namespace. Does it matter? Ineuw (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you possibly clarify what you mean about not being in alphabetical order? Do you mean that the first column on page 2 is a continuation of the first column on page 1, instead of being a continuation of the third? Theknightwho (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
"Alphabetical order" really means single column continuity. Because the sum of rows of the Index pages exceed a single table capacity, it cannot be done. I decided to leave this to more adept hands. Ineuw (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
As an addendum, this is a cosmetic issue. Ineuw (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I think CSS columns should be able to sort this. Rather than having three separate columns that adjoin top to bottom, it's a single column that gets split into three on each page. When that gets transcluded, though, it should be possible to ensure the formatting is just as a single column.
I don't really have time to look into this for you myself, but I guess what I'm saying is that this is definitely a solvable issue. Theknightwho (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful comments. I was curious if it was possible. Unfortunately, CSS is not my forte.Ineuw (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I have actually wondered about how to solve this issue myself, as the three choices all seem a bit rubbish:
  1. Have arbitrary breaks where the pages are, which is confusing on screen.
  2. Have one supertall thin column, which is aesthetically ridiculous.
  3. Have three columns that run continuously top to bottom, which is the easiest to use unless you're dealing with anything that spans the breaks.
Theknightwho (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Breaks are only one of the issues. One supertall thin column pasted into a single blank page and using {{Multicol}} is also not possible. So, please feel free to experiment. I am moving on. :) Ineuw (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
For this kind of thing, I would recommend using something like {{div col}}. Table-based implementations (e.g. {{multicol}}) are 1) not semantically correct and, more importantly, 2) struggle to reflow on small screens (though multicol itself has hacks way up in the Minerva skin to mitigate the worst of this).
Remember, columns were originally "reset" on a per-page basis (i.e. the furthest you'd have to look upwards was a single page). However, on a reflowable webpage, once you reach the bottom of column one, you have to go allllll the way up to the top of column two, which could be hundreds or thousands of lines. So therefore I would suggest "artificially" splitting the index on some basis like alphabatical, so no one section's columns get so tall that "pinging" back to the top of the column is too far. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Update on Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote

Hi all,

With about 2 days left in the poll, I can share that there are 1600 voters as of 18 March 23:20 UTC. There is only one voter with a home wiki registration of en.wikisource.

Being aware that homewiki isn't always indicative of where an editor is active, I would still like to remind everyone that diversity matters and that local opinions are sought in this global decision. It would be beneficial to see the comments about the Enforcement Guidelines given from the perspective of this project, even if en.wikisource is not your your homewiki.

You can access the voting page locally on https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/378

You can look at the votership numbers on this page

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
--BPipal (WMF) (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Facilitaror, SEE
Movement Strategy and Governance
Wikimedia Foundation

Just so's everyone is aware… The Board at the WMF has previously unilaterally decided that there is now a "Universal Code of Conduct" for all Wikimedia projects, to which all contributors on all projects are subject. The current vote is on the ratification of a guideline for how this Code is to be enforced. One aspect of it is to require an "affirmation" (are we a church now?) of the UCoC from every single advanced permissions holder (that is, admins) both when first given the bit and at every single confirmation. That is, the WMF will now require an annual pledge of allegiance from admins on this project. Both the UCoC and the enforcement guideline have other issues of relevance, so I urge everyone who hasn't already to go read them and vote. Local project admins will be required to enforce the UCoC once the guidelines are ratified, so it's in everyone's interest to make sure they are sane. --Xover (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I may also mention, as (currently) the sole representative of enWS in this vote, that all decisions of all of the UCoC-pledged administrators on this project will be subject to the absolute, unchecked power of the U4C for “review.” The pending vote is an attempt by WMF to force community ratification on the UCoC, which has not certainly not been ratified by any community which actually contributed to the success of Wikimedia projects. The opaque drafting and “ratification” of the UCoC by the WMF was troubling enough, but the guidelines are a larger problem, both as to their concreteness and their vagueness. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
What is a home wiki? My vote is listed under the domain "en.wikipedia.org", presumably because I created my account there. However, Special:CentralAuth doesn't show any home icons for me as it does for Xover, for instance. What does it mean? Can I change it? Shells-shells (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@Shells-shells: Your "home wiki" is the project where you first created your account, possibly as amended by the wiki from which you initiated the account migration to a "Global User Account" if you had multiple local accounts prior to about 2008 (before GUC, each wiki had separate user accounts). It's a software thing that you don't need to worry about; the WMF is just using it as a sort of indicator to see whether they are getting participation from across the different projects. It has no real practical implication. Xover (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
"home wiki" is a cultural thing; some functionaries go to other wikis and bring their "home" policy with them (such as user names) resulting in much drama. this highlights the need for a UCoC: no "design for evil" means abusive behavior will proliferate. mistrust of how any policy will be implemented is well founded, but some adult supervision is badly needed. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 15:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Sigh. No. "home wiki" in this context is very definitely a technical concept. And the fact that a code of conduct is needed (which essentially everyone agrees it is) does not ipso facto mean this code of conduct is what is needed. Nor does the need for a code of conduct (again, which pretty much everyone agrees with) mean that the WMF unilaterally deciding on one is a good idea, even if the code in question was a good one. And, finally, the implementation, in the form of the enforcement guidelines, is exactly with what concern is being expressed in this thread. Oh, and jorm is very specifically speaking about software design, not community, policy, and good governance, so that link's relevance in this discussion is nil. Xover (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
oh - it is very relevant. the failure to consider abuse of tools, such as chinese checkuser, and build in oversight from the beginning, is a fundamental software design flaw. not having a UCoC from the beginning is a fundamental software design flaw. the way the software is used by the culture is the problem: wishing the problem away will not solve it. but if you think i’m off base, go ask jorm, i think he will agree with me more than you. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 21:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
If this is the Code WMF came up with when tasked with created a “Universal” Code of Conduct, I highly doubt there is any need to have this, or any, UCoC. jorm’s discussion of design is not really relevant to the creation or implementation by UMW of the UCoC; and is, at least in my view, not generally applicable, and certainly not applicable to Wikimedia projects. Seeing as how there are no problems which could be solved by the UCoC which could not be solved by other, local policies, I think it more believable that the presence of the UCoC is a severe flaw and, if it is ever enforced, will severely limit the power of local oversight of projects. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I can confirm that "home wiki" is definitely a technical thing. It is the project where you first registered your account. That domain is displayed on SecurePoll voting list.
There was a similar question on the Voter Information talk page. BPipal (WMF) (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Is there a centralised discussion forum for this change? I would be curious to know what the attitude is towards this on other projects. While English Wikisource can (and should) have a view on it from the perspective of our needs, it would be good to know some of the prevailing views. Theknightwho (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Theknightwho: Not really. meta:UCoC is the only central page for this (its talk page has some discussion). Otherwise I expect the discussions are scattered around the various projects' village pumps. The WMF doesn't really encourage centralised discussions except through very strictly controlled (usually by hired consultants) channels, and for that reason are usually off-wiki. Xover (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Leadership Development Working Group: Apply to join!

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

Thank you to everyone who participated in the feedback period for the Leadership Development Working Group initiative. A summary of the feedback can be found on Meta-wiki. This feedback will be shared with the working group to inform their work. The application period to join the Working Group is now open and will close on April 10, 2022. Please review the information about the working group, share with community members who might be interested, and apply if you are interested.

Thank you,
--BPipal (WMF) (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
From the Community Development team

Silas Marner (1878) Blackwood

Please Move Silas Marner (1878) Blackwood to The Works of George Eliot (Cabinet Edition)/Silas Marner because it is part of a series. Languageseeker (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Making a specialised font available for a work that needs it

Hi everyone - I have been plugging away at transcribing volume 1 of The Statutes of the Realm, which is the definitive publication of all Acts of the Parliaments of England and Great Britain up until 1713. The early volumes in particular tend to be laid out bilingually, with Latin or Anglo-Norman in one column and an English translation next to it.

One thing Statutes of the Realm is famous for is its use of Record type, which imitates all of the scribal abbreviations from the manuscripts. They're mostly possible to transcribe in Unicode, but most fonts don't support some of the characters used. I did briefly consider expanding out all of the abbreviations, but doing that would be an even more massive undertaking, and in any event, Statutes of the Realm is the legally definitive original language text in the UK, so it's not something I really want to risk getting wrong.

My solution to this has been to use the Junicode font, which is designed for these kinds of transcriptions. It's created by Peter Baker, who is an English professor at the University of Virginia that specialises in this sort of thing, and he has also been extremely receptive to incorporating my various requests and assisting with issues as and when they arise.

I would like to be able to upload Junicode to Wikisource so that it works for all users. This is technically possible through the use of CSS, as you can save the font as a data stream. I've already done it within my own userspace here, but the only person who's able to take advantage of that is me (and anyone else who changes their personal user styles to incorporate it). It definitely works, though, because it displays correctly on my phone.

However, it's not possible to incorporate this into the Index styles for Statutes of the Realm, which would need to happen for it to work for everyone. This is due to Index styles pages using the sanitised CSS content model, which doesn't allow data streams. The only way around this is if an admin changes the content model of the Index styles page from "sanitized CSS" to "CSS".

Is this something that might be possible? Obviously it would need to be implemented carefully, but there's definitely value in doing this. Theknightwho (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this also might be useful for texts like, e.g., Index:The records of the Virginia company of London - Volume 2.djvu. Shells-shells (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@Theknightwho: Custom fonts is a particular pain point. There's a really long version, but the short version is that currently there is no way to do custom fonts. If the need was very great (needed on lots of pages across multiple projects) we could with great effort get a small number of custom fonts available, but in practice this is a no-go until some foundational issues are resolved (in addition to technical issues, that are significant on their own, the problem involves WMF Legal, the Privacy Policy, WMF developer team organization, component maintenance responsibilities, and priorities and resource allocation; it's not solvable in the short term). Xover (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@Xover The problem is that the current default font set doesn't support many of the characters needed to typeset specialist works. One of the works on my radar is the 1783 typeset version of the Domesday Book, which is (mostly) now possible to typeset in Junicode, but other than that you're not going to be able to do it at all. That would, by rights, need to go on the Latin version of Wikisource, so I can certainly see there being a multi-site need for it.
I do appreciate your point about the issues that need to be resolved at WMF though. Is there definitely no way to do it with the data stream method I mention? Theknightwho (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@Theknightwho: I haven't dug into it so I don't know what would be possible to hack up and be made to work locally, but absent a proper solution anything we could come up with locally would be so fragile and unsustainable it is essentially a no go. But if it's really just a newer version of an existing ULS font then it might be possible to get the Language Team to update it. It's adding new specialised fonts that's at an impasse; updating existing fonts happens from time to time (e.g. we just got the Gentium Plus font used for Polytonic Greek updated). Xover (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks - that's promising. The new version of Junicode is still in beta, with features being added pretty fequently, so it's worth waiting until there's a stable release. Theknightwho (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@Theknightwho: In the meantime, it might be worth adding a note to the notes parameter of the header template instructing readers to install the beta version of the Junicode font for optimal reading. Nosferattus (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Nosferattus Good shout. Theknightwho (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
An older version of Junicode is already in ULS, IIRC. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Gap template issue

The markup:

Hello{{gap}}world!

renders as:

Helloworld!

but if copied and pasted, gives:

Helloworld!

with no space.

Should {{gap}} render a copyable space? Would any current uses break, if we made it do so by default? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I have noticed this issue, because it inherently also applies to {{em}}, which uses {{gap}}. The main issue that I can think of is that you're going to introduce loads of double spaces where this has been manually compensated for, and you can't guarantee that all of them will be eliminated by the Wiki software, as some implementations might be nonstandard. Theknightwho (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
{{wide space}} is designed for this. It is genuinely a space character, so it comes with the right semantics: it copy pastes as a space and it won't cause an indent if it wraps. Note that the latter bit (deliberately) makes it unsuitable for a common abuse of gap for faking a margin or indent. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 10:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks - this is useful for me as well. Theknightwho (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-13

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • There is a simple new Wikimedia Commons upload tool available for macOS users, Sunflower.

Changes later this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 29 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 30 March. It will be on all wikis from 31 March (calendar).
  • Some wikis will be in read-only for a few minutes because of regular database maintenance. It will be performed on 29 March at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis) and on 31 March at 7:00 UTC (targeted wikis). [13][14]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Difference Between Collapsible Tables and Collapse Elements Gadgets

Why are there two different gadgets for handling collapsible class? And what are the difference between them?

Maybe about Sidebar Flat-list and Collapsible Nav Menus too because they all seem to be related to each other. --Bebiezaza (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The collapsible gadgets are probably not needed anymore due to built-in support for collapsible elements in the Mediawiki skins. The Sidebar one is a somewhat different beast (it's a UI mod, essentially). I'm not sure any of these actually work any more, and they are in any case not really maintained. The problem is mostly that it's very hard to tell who uses them and for what, so removing them is quite a bit of effort (detective work), and so long as they cause no problems they just kinda sit there. Xover (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Hmm interesting. Over at thwikisource (where I am an admin+IA) we only have Collapsible Tables gadget, but not the other. So I am checking over here to see if we still need it or not. --Bebiezaza (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

PDF page renders differently than what's in the PDF

Was comparing my DJVU upload of Tarzan and the Ant Men to the existing PDF upload, and on at least page 4, the PDF page is rendered almost as if it was parsing the text layer-only. Opening the PDF in browser shows it to be the same as the DJVU page.

Is this a known issue? Should the transcription be migrated to the DJVU index? -- ei (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Einstein95: It's a known issue that Mediawiki degrades the quality of both images and the text layer when it extracts it from a PDF file in a way that it does not when doing so from DjVu files. This is primarily a weakness of Mediawiki, but it is partially caused by weaknesses of PDF as a format (it's just not designed to be used the way we are using it). All else being equal, I generally strongly recommend always using DjVu rather than PDF for Wikisource (outside the Wikisource context there are issues like the ubiquity of PDF reader software that changes the calculus). Xover (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi

Hi, All DjVu uploaded to Commons up to number 31 (public domain both in India and USA), and all indexes created. Yann (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Now that we have the scans, I would like to have a second (and more) opinion about the formatting and the table of content. This is a collection of many small and not so small texts, so I wonder what’s the best way to do it. See the index here. Thanks for your input. Yann (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking, but the volumes need to be moved from Roman to Arabic numbering per our standard style. Each item should have its own subpage within the volume. If that doesn't cover your question, please provide more detail. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that’s what I am asking. Is it necessary that each item to have a subpage, even it is only a few lines? For the first volume, I created subpages by year, but that won’t work later. Would a subpage by month be OK? Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay, think about how these items will be used or referenced. A few people will sit down and read their way through the volume(s), but most will want to just use a particular item, e.g. "Ghandi in his letter of ——— says …". We need a straightforward and precise way of linking from other works and from the sisters, thus I believe that one item per subpage is the best solution. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Just to add my 5 cents since Canada no longer mints pennies, sub pages are a pain because the only way I know how to deal with them is with the {{anchor}} and they must be enclosed with section tags.Ineuw (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Another way to think about it is in terms of preserving the structure of the work as published: if the original work has a sane table of contents, one wikipage per entry in the table of contents is usually a good rule of thumb to start with. That can't always be applied directly (too many quirky tables of contents), but it's usually a decent starting point when deciding how to set up the transclusions for that text and it tends to make transcluding easier to set up since we're following the edition's structure rather than fighting against it. Xover (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: Now each item can be linked, as they are subsections (#Letter to X (xx-xx-xxxx) -> === Letter to X (xx-xx-xxxx) ===. A subpage for each means thousands of new subpages. I will go with the consensus. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Move request: The Village Pulpit, Volume II to The Village Pulpit/Volume 2

I found this on User:Inductiveload/false root pages, and I'd like to standardize the page structure. Specifically, the moves I'd like are:

Thanks! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Copied to Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard#Move request: The Village Pulpit, Volume II to The Village Pulpit/Volume 2. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 07:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
And done! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 17:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Is Wikisource:Featured text candidates still active?

Hi, out of curiosity, is Wikisource:Featured text candidates still active? It seems to have proposed texts dating back to 2018 without closure, and only a few edits this year. If it's not still active, is the process worth keeping? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It's been over a year since we promoted the last featured text and the last substantive discussion on that page is from December last year. It looks dead to me. Should we wrap up the existing discussions and mark the page {{historical}}? If not, is there a way we can reinvigorate the process? Nosferattus (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
People need to make nominations and comment regularly on nominations. Without nominations and comments, the process cannot happen. But this involves actually looking at the work and compating transcribed text and punctuation carefully against the original. It involves checking links and internal structure. It also involves writing main page blurbs about the nomination. Most of these processes halted, and when those processes cease, the entire FT grinds to a halt. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Stories in In a Glass Darkly

Came back to this collection and these subpages should be moved (note that "Mr Justice Harbottle" is being changed to "Mr. Justice Harbottle")

The roman numeral chapter redirects of Carmilla, Green Tea, Mr Justice Harbottle, The Room in the Dragon Volant will need to be updated else they become double redirects. Thanks in advance. -ei (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The Familiar is done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Mr. Justice Harbottle is done, but these redirects need to be deleted. I had to create a linked list because the Search function will no longer allow me to track down redirects dynamically. Yes, I tried the recommended advanced functions by changing my default preferences, but the advanced functions do not seem to be working the way they claim to. Everything seems now to be designed to avoid detecting redirect pages and automatically adjusts page name spellings to avoid listing redirects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Green Tea is done, but these redirects need to be deleted. I had to create a linked list because the Search function will no longer allow me to track down redirects dynamically. Yes, I tried the recommended advanced functions by changing my default preferences, but the advanced functions do not seem to be working the way they claim to. Everything seems now to be designed to avoid detecting redirect pages and automatically adjusts page name spellings to avoid listing redirects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Carmilla is done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
The Room in the Dragon Volant is done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
All the redirects listed above in this thread have now been deleted. Xover (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2022-03&oldid=12341821"