Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Scriptorium Scriptorium (Help) Archives, Last archive
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. This subpage is especially designated for requests for help from more experienced Wikisourcers. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or a new one. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel (a web client is available).

This page is automatically archived by Wikisource-bot

Have you seen our help pages and FAQs?


'Show Preview' and 'Show changes' results displayed in bottom of page[edit]

Perhaps someone knows why these pages the preview display and show changes at the bottom, below the Publish changes button? This problem also exists in the Vivaldi browser. This happens only when I am logged in. I disabled all gadgets, removed the .css and .js codes, logged out and deleted all wikimedia related cookies. Editing without logging in, the display is correct. If I log in, the display moves to the bottom of the web page. Anyone has a suggestion please? — Ineuw (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC) File:Proofread preview pane is on the bottom.jpg — Ineuw (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC) The problem still exists and is something related to my account. On leaving Wikisource, I delete all cookies then I login, and the problem reasserts itself. — IneuwPublic talk 01:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Sounds like you have changed your preferences Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, ensure that you have preview before edit box ticked (or whichever one it is like that, I don't remember the words). — billinghurst sDrewth 01:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: The problem must be with my login. The same problem exists on Wikipedia, Commons and Wikimedia. Preview appears at the bottom of the page.
Could the problem be because I also use the Vivaldi browser to edit on occasion. Could switching between browsers be the cause of the corruption? Ineuw (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
If you noticed that I made changes in Preferences, it was to reset everything to default to test the issue which showed up earlier.Ineuw (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ineuw: We cannot see your preferences, they are yours, I am just presuming. Check your Special:GlobalPreferences also available through any wiki's prefs. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: How could my preferences in Wikisource affect the previews on other sites? I don't use global settings. On each Wiki site I edit, the codes are always stored in the local Vectra files. Ineuw (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea what you have done or been editing. I am giving advice on the setting for preview below editing box, and how to check/change for local and global preferences. You seem to be in a reactive space, rather than a thinking space. You have to be using local/global preferences, they are preferences; see m:Help:Preferences. Your use of a skin, be it vector or another, is still a skin; see mw:Help:Skins. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Billinghurst: Don't know if you are interested in my issue, but I opened this task T251052 ticket. You were 100% correct. It may be that my global preference settings link to the local preferences is broken. User:IneuwPublic has no Global account and the edit preference of displaying the preview works. Ineuw (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Every account is a global account per m:Help:Unified login and demonstrated via special:CentralAuth -> special:CentralAuth/Ineuw and special:CentralAuth/IneuwPublic both exist. If you have something broken in your connection to Special:GlobalPreferences then that is a Wikimedia issue and a phabricator is the right space. Either way, from your Ineuw account you should be able to change your global preference to have the preview above the edit box as a global setting. You should also be able to amend each wiki's local preferences to do per wiki. Nothing that we can do locally to fix, or resolve. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Converting to djvu[edit]

May I ask for help with converting File:Seven Years in South Africa v1.pdf and File:Seven Years in South Africa v2.pdf into djvu? It seems that the files are too big for common online converters. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not think that there is a big problem here: the page thumbnails just generate slowly as often for PDFs. I requested their pre-generation; in 1-2 hours they all should be available as you can see for first few tenth pages here. Unless the file is purged... Ankry (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I've given up on the online converters, I typically use the Linux pdf2djvu command. Have you tried that? I'm happy to do that for you if you'd like Jan.Kamenicek. -Pete (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: That would be great, as I know nothing about Linux :-(
@Ankry: I am sorry, but I did not get it. I do not have problems with generating PDF thumbnails, I just want to convert the files from PDF to DJVU, and when I tried some online converters I either directly got the message "The file size is too large" or they simply did not do anything. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'm working on it. The pdf2djvu program is incredibly simple to use (and can be used on Windows or Mac too, I believe) -- I'd be happy to help you set it up if you'd like. I'm running it now, it's 100 pages into the 500+ page document, I expect it will take an hour or so. I should be able to upload in the next 3-4 hours. -Pete (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: If you think it is easy I will definitely try it :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I tried pdf2djvu on a file recently, and discovered that okular was showing the djvu as seriously downgraded relative to the original. Is this idiosyncratic to my file, or a problem with okular, or some feature I didn't use right?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Seven Years in South Africa v1.djvu

I will see if I can help you, Jan - are you on Mac or Windows? (It's easy to use, we will see how easy it is to set up -- I think it's possible, I will see if I can guide you!) @Prosfilaes: I don't know. I haven't used it in great depth, but it generally seems OK. I bet there are some parameters that determine resolution etc., I will see what I can learn from the man page. -Pete (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

p. 23 after pdf2djvu. Same page at IA.

File:Seven Years in South Africa v1 (temporary).djvu

File:Seven Years in South Africa v1 (temporary).djvu
p. 23 generated from source scans.
[@Prosfilaes: ↑↑↑↑ (the original ping was typoed)]
@Peteforsyth: I had a look at the above DjVu and it appears to have a huge white gutter around each actual page image, as if pdf2djvu worked like "print to DjVu" and placed the actual page image on a larger A4/Letter-sized canvas. Does it have any options to disable that behaviour?
I also looked a bit (quickly, superficially) at the image quality. Compare the legend in the top right of p. 23 in the pdf2djvu-made DjVu with the same page at IA (it's the same scan as the one at HathiTrust). The pdf2djvu output is essentially illegible where the original scan can still at least be interpreted (barely, but possible). That's mostly because the PDF input had excessive encoding artefacts and compression to begin with, but it doesn't help that it's been serially reencoded. And it looks like pdf2djvu has about doubled the pixel resolution from the PDF, which will only have the effect of magnifying the problems.
For comparison I grabbed the original scan images from IA and ran them through my custom DjVu pipeline (scripts wrapping tesseract and djvulibre), and the results look to be at least comparable to the original scans (despite reencoding from JPEG to DjVu wavelets). I have uploaded a temporary copy of this for reference (see second thumb at right). Without having studied this in depth, I am currently using the output from that pipeline as my reference for achievable quality (both for image quality and OCR). That's only anecdotally of course (though I've generated several tens of thousands of pages with it so far), so your mileage may definitely vary.
Anyways, I hope that's of some use when looking for the best settings to use. --Xover (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Great, thanks very much! I am using Windows. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks also @Xover: for the advice, though I have to admit I do not understand it a bit :-( Honestly, I hoped I will simply download some application (some safe one, I have already had some bad experience with freeware), open it and start converting, with results as good as the original was. (sigh: how the life could be easy, if PDFs worked well in Mediawiki environment…) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, it seems like in my haste, I may have made a bit of a mess of things. @Xover: If you have made a better file, please feel free to overwrite the one I already uploaded. I'll try to learn the options in djvu2pdf better, and Jan, I'll follow up on your user talk page about how to install it on Windows. -Pete (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: I'll have to do some quality control on them first: I generated them quickly mainly to have a comparison for the purely technical aspects, and so you'd have a reference for tweaking your own tool setup. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help with that. I'm very much interested in improving the quality of our scans (and OCR), including efforts to improve tooling and expand the pool of contributors that have access to such tools. --Xover (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek, @Peteforsyth: Vol. 1 has been overwritten and Vol. 2 uploaded (index). I've checked them as best I could, but you may want to look over them an extra time to make sure I didn't mess anything up. The index for Vol. 2 was created mainly for quality control so you'll probably have to tweak it to fit your preference. I'll go delete the temporary file now. --Xover (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks very much! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Transclusion of section headings[edit]

I have noticed that when a page contains level 2, 3, etc. headings, and then it is transcluded with a <pages> tag, the headings are not transcluded properly but are included as a literal == Level 2 ==, === Level 3 ==, etc. This is in contrast to transcluding the page template-style like {{this}}. Is this behavior intentional and is there a way to override it?

I have discovered that the issue only appears when a heading is as the first line of a page. Putting a blank line first fixes the issue. Phillipedison1891 (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Phillipedison1891: It is unusual for us to use section headings in transcriptions as they tend not to reflect the works. I have seen them used in some modern works, typically reports, though quite unusual in older works. We would typically use one of the sized block templates, see {{larger block}}, typically wrapped in {{center}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
To answer your question however, due a work being transcluded the page is actually {...previous page text}{space}{==...}, and when transcluded there is no newline. Wiki section headings want to see the start of a line {^}==. As part of transcluding pages together, the pages also join without hard returns. Typically we use {{nop}} at the end of the preceding page, and that sort of guidance applies in this situation. All that wikiformatting of *, # etc. wants to see that it starts the line. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Help with lilypond (transcribing Gregorian chant)[edit]

At the moment, I am trying to transcribe short extracts of Gregorian chant for inclusion at this page in the English hymnal. In so doing, I'm following the examples from the relevant documentation, i.e. this page here. There are some peculiarities with this particular example which need be dealt with (the clef is in a non-standard position; etc...), but none of these are major problems. However, I am having difficulties with transcribing the use of Gregorian ligatures correctly, as the effect remains in subsequent notes (see the effects here). Anybody have any experience with this? 107.190.33.254 01:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

To note Help:LilyPond; @Beeswaxcandle:??? — billinghurst sDrewth 03:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I've managed to solve most of the issues (silly me, just had to add the text, and use "-" instead of "--" for hyphens). However, barlines are not still not showing so I'll keep this up here in case anybody does find a solution for that minor annoyance. 107.190.33.254 17:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hyphenated word across page, but within old-style quoted text[edit]

Here's a conflict between hyphenation across page boundaries, but where the text was italicized. How to do both auto-hyphenation and italics, both in page and main spaces?

The result in the main page was not good:

and that the answers to them by Mr. S. Rosenthal are satis- factory, I feel bound to declare that

The page end and beginning were:

“Having read ... and that the answers to them by Mr. S. Rosenthal are satis-
factory, I feel bound to declare that

One can do the {{hwe}} thing for page space, but I doubt it'd appear well in main space. Shenme (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I just tried not to italicize the hyphen. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Eww, err, works! Thanks. Shenme (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Shenme: Please note that these display templates are partially a gimmick on the lead page, and you can just poke the suffixed/hyphenated text into the footer section and format it without templates to get the effect. All the magic happens on the succeeding page, especially for the tranclusion, so there you can usually wrap the formatting on the outside, and/or the inside with normal nesting. [The reason for the gimmick is to simple lessen the conversation about header/footer, hiding things, etc. which confuses new users] — billinghurst sDrewth 00:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Index:Sandbox.djvu and we have a sandbox for Index/Page: for playtime as needed. We used to have these synched with permanent links to Wikisource:Sandbox and Template:Sandbox though it is a while since I have played there. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Tables where cell content spans pages[edit]

Page:CTSS programmer's guide.djvu/33 and Page:CTSS programmer's guide.djvu/36 is what I'm dealing with, transcluded in Compatible time-sharing system: A programmer's guide Phillipedison1891 (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, figured it out Phillipedison1891 (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Attempts to resolve issues with FI..[edit]

I created a sandbox version of {{FI}}

and a minimal test case here: User:ShakespeareFan00/Sandbox/imgfloats


The nominal live version works as designed.

The sandbox version doesn't. WHY? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The main problem seems to be that for some reason the width attribute for the inner DIV and images are NOT being set up properly.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Abandoned, because the approach used is clearly not going to work. If someone else want to look at the past revisions of the sandbox and figure out what went wrong, feel free, but I don't feel happy wasting my time continually fighting bad design and misunderstandings in the back-end and interactions of template markup.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Whitespace handling...[edit]

In connection with something I was working on :- User:ShakespeareFan00/Sandbox/CCEmovies

The whitespace between entries is a double line opposed to a single used between paragraphs within an entry. Within a single page this is reasonable, and it should be stated that there's no "visual" problems on the transclusion.

However, currently, the additional 2 lines at the end of the first transcluded page and then a NOP, means that whereas inside a page the additonal whitespace is 'tidyed' into the proceeding paragraph, at a nominal page-break it generates a blank paragraph and a blank div. In my example this is not an issue, but it's unreasonable to expect less experienced contributors to know about this whitespace handling issue long-term.

Is there a better solution to spacing out the entries, that doesn't rely on knowing precise whitespace behaviour (or a lot of unnecessary templates?

(Aside: Whist {{nop}} and {{nopt}} work as designed, I am increasingly of the view that they should be a "magic word" directive to Proofread page as opposed to the insertion of 'dummy' or 'empty' content into a page. There were apparently suggestions elsewhere that Mediawiki might eventually strip out "blank" tag pairs entirly, which would naturally break ALL content relying on the behaviour {{nop}} uses. ) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, could {{nop}} be extended in an appropriate way so it could insert additional blank lines to accommodate the formatting used here?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk)

Rotated header in table cells..[edit]

Page:Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, vol. 34.djvu/493

Yes the approach here is in good faith, but whilst {{rotate}} does rotate, the size of the surrounding table cell doesn't meaning it looks very ugly.

Is there a better solution , Supported in CSS for this specfic use case? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the style min-height does not work, so I tried to change it just for height and now it looks better. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Different beahviour from span vs DIV based version of templates due to unnamed parmaeters[edit]

The output should be the same.

Hwæt! wē Gār-Denain gēar-dagum Fol. 129a.

Hwæt! wē Gār-Denain gēar-dagum Fol. 129a.

But the font or fonts param were not being passed down it seems. Temporary fix implemented but would appreciate a review.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hyphenated italics over a page break?[edit]

Is the behaviour when transcluding?

''A-'' ''B''

''A-''''B''

Or is is it a third case I haven't considered?

I have a possible way to handle this which is to wrap a SPAN tag around the portion to handle the italic formatting, if desired, but wanted to confirm the actual behaviour before writing 'yet another useless' template. (Especially given the concerns about SPAN DIV handling with respect to body/footer interactions mentioned elsewhere.

The proposed new template was {{iws}}{{iwe}} following on from {{hws}}{{hwe}} ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a good concept, but the second example is wrong. The opening portion of the proposed template should only have the open tag, and the closing template should only contain the closing tag. I propose using HTML <i></i> for clarity in templates instead of wiki code. Also, this has nothing to do with hyphenation. — Ineuw (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Not sure I'm understanding SF's original question, but did the situation resemble my above posting, which Jan.Kamenicek solved by doing (essentially)
''hi''-
''there''
to get the effect of ''hithere'' across page boundary. The third option? Shenme (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Shenme: The result of your solution is hi there. If you are using the Clean up OCR tool from the sidebar, that software is supposed to remove hyphens from the end of each text line to eliminate hyphenation and merge two separated words into one — and that is not the same.

To merge them into an unbroken word one should use the hws + hwe template. To enclose the text in italics and retain the hyphen in hi-there, I can only do it if the closing code is hidden in the footer and the opening code is is hidden in the header of the following page, as in ...

Page 1
Opening tag outside the template <i>{{hws|hi-|hi-there}} hidden in the footer </i>
Page 2
The opening italics tag <i> is hidden in the header and the closing tag is outside the template {{hwe|there|hi-there}}</i>.

The third option is move the end half of the word from the second page to the first and leave a note <!--hwe joined with hws--> and join them as hithere on one page. Also check your transcluded method on the main namespace page.— Ineuw (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned I wasn't sure of the desired result or problem. In my question I had italicized text that needed the hyphen to disappear stitching together as desired "satis" and "factory" to get "satisfactory", whereas I was getting instead "satis- factory", which you are pointing out? I wish the original question had included a problem example. Pictures for those having difficulties with "word problems" is nice. :-) Shenme (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Your method removed the hyphen but the main namespace text will display a space. — Ineuw (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Based on discussions elsewhere, the issue SF00 was having was a word that was split across pages and was italic. The solution for that case is, as Jan points out, to use ''hyphena''- and ''ted'' (will render as hyphenated on transclusion). ProofreadPage, so far as I can tell, doesn't care what precedes the hypen or follows the start of the next page: if a page ends with a literal hyphen (-) it will remove the hyphen and join the two pages without a gap, and you can plan your markup based on that. I have yet to run across a real-world case that actually requires the use of {{hws}}/{{hwe}} after this feature was implemented. Preserving a hyphen at the end of a page requires something like {{peh}}, but that's about it. --Xover (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Theoretical discussions are easily resolved if you temporarily (as a test) insert the words as you see it, in two sequential pages in the page namespace which are already transcluded Save it and open the main ns page and look for the break (easy) and see what the result is. I am convinced that you are wrong. There will be a space between the two words in the main namespace where the two pages are supposed to be joined.— Ineuw (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Xover's response is based on an ACTUAL test case in Page: namespace - See the 4th test case here User:ShakespeareFan00/Sandbox/hyphtest hws and hwe are no longer needed, because the backend code handling hyphenation WAS updated. However, if a genuine hyphen is needed at the end of a page you now have to explicitly indicate this with {{peh}}. A more intelligent syntax for how to handle 'split' styled content was something suggested on Phabricator a while back but can't recall which ticket number. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: You know a hell of a lot more than I do . . . especially about templates! The problem is whatever we do in the page namespace between two pages is only visible in the main namespace. Is it possible to see a transcluded main namespace article of these? — Ineuw (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why? why why? We don't need another damn template. On the first page just stick the formatted text in the footer. On the second page just use {{hwe}} and wrap it in italics. You can even have both components of the HWE template have italics within. the HWS/HWE templating is just to make things easier for us to explain to newbies, it has no other essential functioning and shouldn't be treated as some sort of magic bullet. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, the template-based approach was presumably because at the time it looked like it was necessary in order to be able to split a word with formatting applied across pages. Once it was made clear you could just use something like ''hyphena''- and ''ted'', the templates were obviously no longer needed. Which applies to {{hws}}/{{hwe}} too, by the way. They are no longer meaningfully needed, and the little added value they provide is nowhere near sufficient to outweigh their added complexity. We should no longer recommend these templates for new users, and even experienced users with a habit should be encouraged to rethink it (mainly because new users tend to learn by example, so you get voodoo uses of them for all eternity). Was it not such a massive effort for marginal gain I would have argued for systematically replacing their use and actively deprecating them (and we have much bigger fish with much better value propositions to fry). --Xover (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I know why they were created in the beginning and the evolution from {{hw}} to {{hws}}/{{hwe}} and I still support the use of {{hwe}}. It was the creation of an italics version that was doing my nut, and that the discussions gets legs and grows. I still somewhat support the retention of {{hws}} for newbies as it allows the continuation of the conversation of "type what you see" in the body, and multiple new users have struggled over the years to understand the header and footer components. I don't understand the dogged continued use of it by experienced users, well at least not in the body of the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
What is the purpose you see for {{hwe}}? --Xover (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
If there is a way to make hyphenated words within page-spanning footnotes work properly without the use of these templates, I would very much like to know it. If there is not, then that seems like reason enough not to phase out the templates. As to the question of why I "doggedly" used them for so many months after it was no longer necessary, it's simple (and I think reasonable): I don't pore over every Scriptorium announcement etc., and until very recently I simply didn't know that they were no longer necessary. No rebellious intent, just a lack of information. I'd imagine there are many others like me. -Pete (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
You learn something new every day… Thanks Pete, I hadn't thought of that case. That is indeed a very good reason to retain these templates, and once you need them for some cases it may be—as I think is part of Billinghurst's point above—simpler to communicate that you always use them for such cases (including outside ref tags) to inexperienced users. We should probably investigate the feasibility of making this case behave like the general case, but as that involves the interaction of mw:Extension:ProofreadPage and mw:Extension:Cite, and parsing rules and what works inside extension content is pretty arcane to begin with, that may be a tall order. --Xover (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Put crudely, before about September 2018 transcluded pages were essentially assembled with a space inserted between each one. No ifs or buts. Needless to say this messed up hyphenated words across individual pages.
Then came this change which mindlessly removed both the inserted space above and any adjacent hyphen. Great for English but (as you will see from discussion in the above change) a bit of a nuisance for certain cases in Chinese and German. And tough in the rare cases where you really wanted that hyphen to appear!
Cautious use of {{hws}}/{{hwe}} or {{lps}}/{{lpe}} can result in robust operation in all circumstances as use of these templates bypasses any so-called smart system handling—and as such it would be my personal recommendation to use them in all circumstances where you do not of absolute certainty know that you do not need to do so. My 2¢ 114.78.202.244 12:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Searching for Recent Changes in a specific Work[edit]

How can I search for recent changes in a specific work? I am working on An_Exposition_of_the_Old_and_New_Testament_(1828) but this contains 6 huge DJVUs. I'd like to be able to go to Special:RecentChanges and search for the string "An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828)".--PeterR2 (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Is your desire separate from "Related Changes" available from each DJVU index page? For instance, from Vol 1 index page in the left column under 'Tools' there is "Related Changes" for Vol 1. Clicking that link will show you changes in the last 30 days. The number of days and number of changes is personalized to you, so the tools link may show you fewer.
Here is the equivalent link for Vol 2., "Related Changes" for Vol 2. You will see that there *haven't* been any changes in 30 days.
Nor in Vol 3. or Vol 6. But Vols 4 and 5 *have* had activity. I don't know of a way to query all 6 volumes at once. Shenme (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
That's most helpful, thank you. I searched all over for quite a while before asking! Thank you also, Shenme and ShakespeareFan00 for the work you have done in Vol 4 and Vol 5 of An_Exposition_of_the_Old_and_New_Testament_(1828).PeterR2 (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We have {{engine}} which can be used to search works in the page namespace, and if there are volumes of works that is still possible if the initial part of the stem of the pagenames is the same. Have a look at {{Index Alumni Oxoniensis}} as an example in a template; or Wikisource:WikiProject Biographical dictionaries/Catholic Encyclopedia where we have a couple looking at bits in works. It does nothing for time-related recent changes, though there is possible that function within mw:Help:CirrusSearchbillinghurst sDrewth 05:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Images in footnotes[edit]

Within Index:Primevalantiquit00wors.djvu there are several pages that have images within or beside footnotes (for example this one, this one, and this one). The help pages Help:Footnotes and endnotes and Help:Adding images do not mention anything about this happening. What should be done in cases like this? DraconicDark (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Add them, as best you can. If you want someone to have a go, then let us know. The help pages are just help pages compiled to cover situations, so will never comprehensively cover every subject. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Editing of certain texts[edit]

How should I deal with texts in which a new text starts immediately after the previous text, causing there are 2 distinct text to be transcribed on related pages? An example will be Page:Acts of the Parliament of India 1955.pdf/121, in which I would like to first deal with the lower Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: You want labelled section transclusion. --Xover (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I believe that the the page that Xover referred to contains a lot of interesting information, but I personally do not understand there a bit although I often use sections here :-) I would suggest to have a look at some pages where the sections are used and learn there. The most common way is dividing the page into sections using ##s1##, ##s2## etc. If you need to end a section before another one starts (usually not necessary), you can do so using ####. An example is here. For an example of transclusion you can have a look here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: You are entirely correct. I was too hasty here, and that page is way too technical to be very useful as user guidance on this. Mea culpa! @廣九直通車: Look at Jan's much more useful summary of how this works, and do please feel free to ask for assistance if you need it. Labelled section transclusion is kinda complicated to get started with, but starts to make sense after you've used it a bit. PS. My pings to you don't appear to get delivered. I'm not sure whether that's my web browser going off course somewhere around 东莞市 or mediawiki's Notify extension, but you may want to be aware of it. --Xover (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The relevant local page for help is Help:Transclusion#How to transclude a portion of a page.

The #### methodology only works if you have the gadget turned on as it manipulates <section> begin and end tags. Personally I still use sections tags as that is my preference for tidy work, they make biographical works in the Page: ns difficult to read. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I see no mention of a gadget at that link -- which gadget are you referring to? I use the #### methodology, but if there is a better way I'd like to learn it. I don't remember turning on a gadget to be able to do that...but maybe I did, a long time ago. -Pete (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: It's the rather confusingly named "Easy LST" in the "Editing tools for Page: namespace" group in the Gadgets section of your preferences. The Labelled section transclusion extension actually uses html/xml-like start and end tags; the gadget lets you use the much simpler ####-style and converts them back and forth with the html-style tags when the page is saved / loaded for editing. The actual code lives at MediaWiki:Gadget-Easy LST.js, and as you can see it's a bit of a hack. Albeit a hack that has proven remarkably robust and problem free (my hat's off to GOIII!). --Xover (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • So, I bet the result will be something like this, with the page requiring labelled section transclusion like this?廣九直通車 (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
    @廣九直通車: Yup, got it in one. You'll typically want to label every part of a given page, because the other parts will have the same problem (parts of multiple works on the same physical page) and needs the same solution. And you almost never need the #lst syntax: it's the native / generic syntax of the MediaWiki extension that adds labelled section transclusion, but the ProofreadPage extension (what provides the <pages …> tag) has specific support for this that makes it easier to use.
    fromsection=…: on the page in the "from" parameter, only include this named section
    tosection=…: on the page in the "to" parameter, only include this named section
    onlysection=…: on all the pages in the range given by the "from" and "to" parameters, only include this named section (rarely needed)
    It's a little complicated, but it is a lot powerful. :) --Xover (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
    It is how we manage all our many biographical dictionaries and encyclopaedia: 70 volumes of DNB, EB1911, DAB, etc. As a general comment, we would not typically use the s1, s2, ... format for our sections, there we match them to the {{SUBPAGENAME}} as that allows for a lot more reliable and easier transclusion. For example, Page:Thom's Irish who's who.djvu/72.

    Very rarely use {{#section}} especially not in a raw format, typically templated in something like Template:Authority reference where we have to do some real magic to get the desired results. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:34, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

How to add the "LS" chop on legislation?[edit]

For example, are there any templates for this chop? I mean that "LS" in the circle on pages like Page:Terrorism (Suppression of Bombings) Act 2007.pdf/2. As a common feature of common law legislation, I bet there should be some sort of templates like this? If not, please advise how to do this, many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Create the image and store it at Commons. Not sort of thing for which we would typically create a template — billinghurst sDrewth 08:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@廣九直通車: I took a quick look at the options for doing something fancy here, but that seems to be a non-starter right now. There's no suitable character or function in Unicode, which we otherwise could have used. Mediawiki also doesn't support inline SVG or some other way to create vector graphics of the kind needed for this. And I found no signs this is likely to change any time soon.
However, as an experiment, I have created a very simple SVG version of this locus sigilli and uploaded it to Commons at File:locus sigilli.svg, and then wrapped it in a local template that just takes a size specification (any valid mediawiki image size specification) as an argument: {{locus sigilli}}. Thus, to get a 16px wide version you'd use {{locus sigilli|16px}}Locus sigilli
The default is 60px: Locus sigilli But you can request any size, like 120px: Locus sigilli
I'm not sure this is something a template is well suited for. For one thing, only the modern anglosphere acts use this particular simple locus sigilli; historically they are more likely to be ornate graphical jobbies that will need to be handled with individual images from the specific work. For the ones that are simple enough to generate in this way, I'm not sure there is sufficient variation that using a template is simpler than just using the image directly.
That being said, using a template does let us dynamically choose some aspects of the locus. We can set the background color, the stroke color of the circle, and the text color. We can do things like offer variants with "LS" or "L.S.". We can also offer different designs within the scope of simple geometric shapes. Due to limitations of the approach we will mostly have to create multiple images for the variants and have the template choose between them (similar to {{custom rule}}), which is non-optimal but feasible.
In any case, feel free to try it out; and if you have thoughts about extended use cases, do let me know. And you should of course also feel free to use the SVG image from Commons directly. --Xover (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, many thanks to your effort to create the image and template. I literally have no knowledge on either SVGs and templates, so many thanks to your assistance.

Question on US copyrights regarding foreign translated works and URAA[edit]

Hi to all! I again have a question regarding US copyrights for foreign works. Now my question relates to translated works, for which the copyright, AFAIK, is "constructed" from copyrights contributed by two parties: the first — copyright introduced by author of the original work from which the translation was made; the second — copyright contributed by translator of the work. And the question is: regarding copyright in the US for some tranlated work, which was created and published outside of the US completely in both parts (when both original and translation were published outside of the US) — how the total copyright state, and possible copyright restoration by URAA, is evaluated for this work — which of following options is used:

1) separately for both those contributions of copyright (one from original author and one from translator), and complete copyright state is summarized from both statuses, and possible 95-year copyright term expiration for any part is also taken in account;

2) or, the translation is evaluated as a whole, and its copyright status in US determined based only whether the translated work was as a whole in copyright on URAA date, and whether 95-year term for that translation has expired by now.

To make my question more clear, I also provide some specific case where this question makes a difference.

There is a work by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin — a newspaper article about Vladimir Lenin, that article was written by Stalin in Russian and published in 1924 year in the newspaper Pravda ("Truth"). The copyright for this work expired in the US on January 1 of this (2020) year since the 95-year term from publication date (1924) has expired, notwithstanding that the copyright in Russia has not yet expired, because Russia uses 70-year PMA term, with addition of 4 years for Great Patriotic war participants, so in Russia copyright for this work expires only in 1953 + 74 + 1 = 2028 year.

Also I have found a translation of this work to the Moksha language (one of languages of national minorities of Russia), that translation was created by anonymous author(s) and published in some Soviet Moksha-language magazine in 1936.

So, if: 1) to evaluate US copyright statuses of original work and translation, and summarize that statuses, then what we get:

1. The copyright of the original work by Stalin has expired in the US, though still has not expired in Russia.

2. The copyright status of the anonymous translation: it had expired in Russia on the URAA date of January 1, because by Russian laws of that time, 50-year protection term from publication date was applied for anonymous works, so its copyright had to expire in 1936 + 50 + 1 = 1987 year. So the copyright, contributed by translation itself, should not be restored by the URAA.

Finally, since both those copyrights are now invalid in the US (the author's one has expired and the translation's was not restorable under URAA terms), summarized copyright must be considered as invalid as well.

But, if: 2) to evaluate copyright status for work as a whole, then:

That particular translation taken as a whole, was copyrighted in Russia on the URAA date of January 1, 1996, since Stalin's works were generally (including that Russian original, and that translation being considered) under copyright, because 54-year term (50 years PMA basically + 4 years for Great Patriotic war participants) had not yet expired, so if treated as a whole, its copyright should be restored by the URAA, and should get standard 95-year protection term provided by US laws.

So, from the answer to this question the decision depends, whether the translation has expired copyright in the US now, or it is protected until 1936 + 95 + 1 = 2032 year (that is, even later than the copyright expires in Russia)?

I have failed to find myself any information how this case is treated by legal provisions of the US, so any help from any learners of the US copyright is greatly appreciated. --Nigmont (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If the translation was copyrighted in the Soviet Union in 1996, it was restored. I don't see any way around it being restored, since it was copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: "Hmm." The translation's Russian copyright expired in 1987 (anonymous = pub + 50). Stalin's original will expire in Russia in 2028 (pma. 70). As I understand it, the two copyright terms run independently for translations (as opposed to collaborative works like movies etc.). Thus, on the URAA date in 1996, the translation was in the public domain in the source country and not restored; and the original was in copyright in the source country and restored to a pub. + 95 US term that expired on January 1, 2020 (published in 1924). Only the parts of the translation that are separably Stalin's work were covered by the URAA restoration, and even those expired when the US copyright on the original expired. Where am I going astray here? --Xover (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the copyright on derivative works is separable like that, but I have nothing to cite one way or the other.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Meh. What's the world coming to when you can't rely on Prosfilaes to give you the authoritative answer on these things! :)
But, ok, it does seem like the crux on this issue is whether the original author's work is separable from the translation's author's work for copyright purposes; which is, I think, the issue Nigmont was trying to highlight. And when even Prosfilaes doesn't know, the bottom line is probably that we can't give a definitive answer for this.
But I'll try to do a bit of "reasoning out loud" in case it's useful (including for sparking definitive arguments against my conclusion).
A translation is a derivative work of the original. The right to make derivative works is an exclusive right granted to the author of the original, and you need a license (in some form) to be able to make a derivative work (like a translation) from someone else's work. But the derivative work does create its own, new, copyright for the new work. This is why we have translations that are still in copyright even if the original's has expired. This, of course, does not supersede or invalidate the original copyright: both copyrights exist concurrently. There is also no general case that the original author's copyright extends to the new work: an unauthorised translation can be blocked (permission withheld) by the original author, but the original author cannot commercially exploit the translation (the translator's original contribution).
For a translation, that includes but modifies (translates) the whole of the original work, it is not very obvious that there are two distinct works in play. But consider something like painting or sculpture where one may repurpose bits and pieces of an original work, or music where one samples a small part or theme from an original to include in a much larger musical composition. Sean Combs (Puff Daddy) sampling Jimmy Page's guitar on "Kashmir" as a prime example: Jimmy Page and Led Zeppelin does not have any claim to most of "Come With Me", but does own the guitar riff and both could and very likely would have sued if there was no permission or license deal (this is common in the music field).
This argues strongly, to me, that there is nothing inherent to derivative works as such that make them inexplicably muddled together: so long as the derivative work contains distinguishable components with separate authorship, each author can and does retain an individual copyright for those parts. So any argument to the contrary would have to be based on the intrinsic properties of a translation, as distinct from derivative works in general.
And here we come to the concept of "separability". In the context of deciding what is eligible for copyright protection (original expression) and what is merely dictated by function and thus not eligible for copyright protection, the courts have applied a "separability test". For an ornate wooden chair, or a display case with various arrangements of flowers, design elements that necessarily follow from the object's function (being a chair, being a picture frame to hang on the wall, etc.) are not eligible for copyright protection, no matter how ornate or their artistic merit, unless they can be separated from the functional object of which they are part. There's a whole lot of nuance and detail to this (does it need to be physically possible to separate them, or is it sufficient to merely be able to imagine the element separately?), but the salient point is that the courts saw separability as a central test to distinguish between different parts of a work (those that are eligible for copyright and those that are not).
And, given we accept that distinct copyrights can exist for distinct parts of the same work, this issue for me becomes just such a "separability" question. Can we identify distinctly the parts of the translation that are the work of the original author and which are the work of the translator? To me it seems fairly obvious that the ideas and the ways to express them are the original author's, and the specific choice of words and idiomatic phrasing belongs to the translator, and that the two are distinct and distinguishable entities.
The counter-position would have to be that they are either collaborative works (where you can at best identify a proportion, but not assign each part to a specific author) or collective works (like a motion picture, where all parts, while distinguishable, are necessary to make the final product). But for a translation of a text, neither of these are a good fit. The original and the translation were produced entirely independently of the other, and each can be exploited entirely independently of the other. The two have different audiences and markets, and are not packaged together (except insofar as one was derived from the other).
Any thoughts or arguments would be welcome; and we will run into this issue occasionally so it would be useful to have an answer. --Xover (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Xover: Okay. I'm not entirely convinced, but it is a good case, and I won't challenge it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Bleh! If you're not convinced, then I'm not convinced. But let's call the above then "the best I can come up with" as a disclaimer. If anybody comes across something that directly addresses the issue (in the Copyright Compendium or some such), I would very much appreciate a pointer. --Xover (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Unexpected effect with flex box[edit]

On this page, the two poems at the bottom are both ten lines long and both are size "fine block," so the flex box ought to align them perfectly -- but one is a little lower than the other, how come? Levana Taylor (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm no expert in the div formatting you used, but the padding seems different for the two columns; have I fixed the problem? -Pete (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it’s fine now, and I still don’t know why ... Levana Taylor (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
While I don't know all the ins and outs of the div tag, padding is like a margin. When one column has a 12px padding and the other had 20px, that means the latter was "pushed in" 8 pixels more than the former. -Pete (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe this helps? If you want to specify padding for top, bottom, left, or right, you can do so...but if you don't, I believe the simple "padding" attribute affects all four sides equally. -Pete (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The CSS box model, and the various parts of it you can manipulate using CSS.
In case it's useful for someone… (I think both of you know this stuff already)
In the CSS box model, "padding" is the area between the border of the notional box (the div element) and its contents, while the "margin" is the area between the box and its surrounding elements. Such a box has padding, border, and margin; and all three have a width (the border is most often 0; that is, it is invisible and takes up no space). Borders have different syntax in CSS, but for both padding and margin the shorthand syntax is either padding: top right bottom left, padding: top&bottom left&right, or padding: all. That is, if you give it four values they will apply to the four sides, starting with the top and going clockwise around the box; if you give it two, the first applies to the top and bottom, and the second applies to the left and right; and if you give it a single value it applies to all four sides.
The long form for these are actually of the form margin-left: 1em and padding-top: 12px (for all four sides, and for both margin and padding). These may be easier to remember, but are a little less convenient, especially when used inline.
Once you're into using Flexbox and other advanced stuff there is an infinity of details to keep in mind—like whether adjacent boxes' margins collapse or stack—but just the essence of margin, border, and padding are easy enough once you learn them and are widely applicable. --Xover (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Issue with Djvu (text one page shifted)[edit]

I uploaded a converted Djvu and made an index (Index:The Carnegie institute and library of Pittsburgh (1916).djvu), but the Djvu text is off by one page. What would be the best way to fix this?

Thanks, Crocojim18 (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Crocojim18: The easiest way is probably to let me know and I'll regenerate it for you. You can do it yourself, of course, but it's a lot of technical fiddling so I don't usually suggest that as the first course of action (but I'm happy to help any way I can if anybody wants to dig into it!). In any case, this was an instance of phab:T219376 and the fix is to regenerate the DjVu from the source scans without the pages that trigger the problem (it's triggered by invalid hidden text layers attached to some pages, and it's usually the calibration page inserted before the start of the book). I've uploaded a fixed version. --Xover (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay! Thank you!! Crocojim18 (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Node-count limit exceeded?[edit]

I think this issue needs no description. Anyone, please visit THIS PAGE and tell me how I can fix this. Thanks in advance. — Ineuw (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Drop the table formatting. All you need for this is a blank line between entries and two between letters (i.e. when switching from the As to the Bs). See Page:Merchant of Venice (1923) Yale.djvu/129 for an example. If you absolutely can't stand the amount of whitespace between entries (I say you shouldn't worry about it, but to each his own), you can break entries with a <br /> instead (it won't trip this particular Mediawiki limit). That index based on tables or other such complex approaches is never going to work. --Xover (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Much thanks. I got it and will fix it. — Ineuw (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)