From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, 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 webclient.

This page is automatically archived by Wikisource-bot

Have you seen our help pages and FAQs?

Nontrivial request: Recovering unclear pdf document[edit]

(also cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:Graphics Lab)

Hello, I don't know if this is the correct forum etc. so apologies.

I'm working on a complete rewrite of w:Bengal famine of 1943 in my personal sandbox. The central document for this topic (though it's biased) is the Woodhead Commission Famine report. It's a available in pdf format here. I can save that into .txt format (hurray!), and have written a little Python program that finds keywords from a large number of similar text files and stores quotes into separate files.. however, the scan quality or the Famine Commission report is so poor that extended stretches are simply gobbledygook.

This is a nontrivial request: Is there a PhotoShop guru (or similar) who could sharpen the MANY pages into significantly better & more scannable pdfs? Not all pages could be fixed, because some show the curvature of the book pages etc., but I think many many could be improved.

I have downloaded an evaluation copy of PhotoShop etc and tried to use Sharpen and Levels or Layers whatever to make each page more machine readable, but I don't know how to do it for an entire (large!) report, and I don't know how to scan them or save them to text instead of image (printing every page and scanning each manually is obviously much too much work). I also have a family life and work etc. and learning how to do all these things would just take too much time.

Does anyone have suggestions?

In theory, this service might be valuable for other old documents scanned to pdf, but i dunno how much demand there would be for such a service.

Thanks!Lingzhi (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Update: User:MjolnirPants supplied a detailed answer at Wikipedia talk:Graphics Lab which suggests that my request may be prohibitively impractical... I won't delete this thread (just in case), but it is probably a closed matter. Thanks!Lingzhi (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Lingzhi: Another copy here. However, this is the report on Bengal, not the final report. The final report is here. I have added them at Wikisource: 1, 2. OCR text layer is OK. Hrishikes (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Thanks for the info! I'm mildly embarrassed to admit that I don't know what you wrote means, and I don't know what's going on on the Wikisource pages you linked... I may ask GabrielF for his opinion some time in the next few days, since another editor said GabrielF seems to be The Man... thanks again!Lingzhi (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I want to point out to anyone interested (likely about two people over the whole project) that I just got the ping from the link to my userpage today, 35 days later. Hence my late response. Also, I wanted to clarify what Lingzhi said about my answer: The problem was that the original document was a high resolution, bitonal bitmap. That means every pixel was either pure black or pure white. That's why contrast, levels and such made no difference. My longer answer, for anyone who's curious, can be found here. MjolnirPants (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Three Thousand Selected Quotations from Brilliant Writers[edit]

After three months (and a little bit), I finally finished proofing this project. I have attempted transclusion: got the first part, index of authors, and index of subjects done; however, there is too much for the "Burning Words..." part. I got the dreaded template limit notice, which crashes somewhere in the "Ministers" subject. Methinks, the unknown-to-me part needed is sections. I have read and studied and still can't figure it out. Not yet. Can someone go into this and fix? I'll go back and check in a few days how this should've been done. Then I'll know for any possible next time for this kind of project. Humbug26 (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

What was your plan, to include the entire work from A-Z in the Burning Words part? In that case, I think the book would be especially good with a page for each subject since then you can have easy tight sections. I am happy to do the transclusion for you. - Tannertsf (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't sure just what the ultimate plan should have been; alphabetical breaks or subject breaks. There are two letters not included, and a couple of subjects have only a couple of quotes. If you are willing to take on the transclusion of this part of the project, however you think appropriate, I'll be grateful. Thank you. Humbug26 (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Most definitely break it down to component parts … work of that length as 600 scrollable web pages, <shudder> readability alone! You will know the work best, though a quick look at the ToC would seem that an A-Z breakdown may be suitable. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I think either letter sections or subject sections would both be good options. But, with 600 pages, that would be around 20-25 pages of content on each page. Subject would have more links, but we could make it look nice and work nice. So, Humbug26, I'll leave it up to you to pick out what type of transclusion to do since you know the book more than anyone else. Then I will start on it! - Tannertsf (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Two things. First, Billinghurst: I agree that it seems to make perfect sense to go with alphabetic breakout; second, Tannertsf, you did offer your help. As I have put "anchor+" against the alpha-letter AND we can use "compactTOCalpha" to go to an alphabet area, my decision, reluctant as it is, is to ask for a subject breakout. We currently have no way of getting to say the subject of "Meekness" or "Merit", both of which have 2 quotes each versus the subject "Christ" which has 48 pages of quotes. I did put in DJVU page links but see it doesn't transfer to transclusion, which is not a good thing. (There must be a reason why it doesn't; then why have it? Is there not something that does work?) Tannertsf, I'm sure you have your game plan in place for subjects, as you spoke for that decision in a nice way. Humbug26 (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Alphabetical is fine to me as well. I am happy to start it if you give the go ahead. - Tannertsf (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Alphabetical is okay with me as well. Go ahead. Humbug26 (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok I have done the first few letters and set up a rudimentary TOC. This would be a perfect way to learn sectional transclusion: if you take a look at the pages which switch into different letters, you will notice that those pages have a section tag marking the part of per se "B", and the other tag is marking the second part, which would be "C". These tags are truly handy, and if you follow what I have done with the first few letters you should be able to go through the rest on your own. Feel free to ask for help if you try and don't succeed, but I want you to take this as a learning opportunity. - Tannertsf (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take a look at this maybe tomorrow or the next day. I just spent the last 3+ hours upgrading from Win8.1 to Win10. I'm still trying to figure out my way around. Humbug26 (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Much better. Thank you, Tannertsf, for your help on this. And no, I don't want to do any more like this; there's just so much fun a person can handle at one time. Humbug26 (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Table over page break won't transclude correctly.[edit]

Having reworked the template to what I THOUGHT was now the correct approach, I went to review the transclusion using <pages> and found it had busted completely. Short Titles Act 1896/First Schedule/6 Ann. Can someone explain in very simple terms what went wrong, as I am getting frustrated at having to work around a pedantic parser. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The current revision looks fine to me. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The only problem I see is that each page is identified as [page] instead of by its page number. The table itself looks OK. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
And when I attempted to fix it (see the history) It refused to behave, making me wonder if there's something more seriously wrong with the underlying templates, which only manifests when <pages> is used vs direct transclusion of each page. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
This would of course be academic if there was a SANE way to run tables across page boundaries...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
What's even more puzzling is that on a previous set of pages trancluded elsewhere , the issue of the table formationg goin haywire doesn't occur. - The problem template seems to be {{Statute table/titles/entry}} which should probably be re-written because it's quite intensive on the parser currently. In the process of documentating at the momentShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm also of the view that {{Short-title}}} should be re-built as Lua, as it's reaching the limit of what can be done in template markup. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
This is what you get for presenting—as having a problem—an item in which you have subsequently attempted to mask the very problem you ought to be demonstrating—hoping for general assistance.
The prior version using <pages> was attempting to build a table from the output produced by:
{{statute table/titles/header}}
<pages index="Public General Statutes 1896.djvu" from=36 to=37 />
{{statute table/titles/footer}}
—which fails due to the resulting table consisting of only one row of three cells (you clearly expected it to produce many more rows but in fact the entire <pages> transclusion populates the rightmost cell due to LST enclosing its output in <div> </div> tags. The solution is to take a lesson from the prior chapter and rearrange your transclusion such that <pages> delivers only entire table structures (i.e. including table header, content and footer) as a unit.
Also, should not "6 Anne, c. 11." be included under both chapters, as it equally suits both banners "6 Ann" as well as "Pre Union"?
Finally, EncycloPetey's point above regarding page numbers may be partially addressed (if you want to persist in the current path) by substituting each, for example {{page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/36}}, with {{page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/36|num=16}} etc. AuFCL (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I did that here - The_Public_General_Statutes_(1896)/Table_VI (which has a simmilar issue) and nothing happened, I.E no page numbers. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Really? No, you didn't. I recommended use of the {{page}} template. What you did was to directly transclude individual Page: space pages. Either of the following approaches works in this situation and both generate the structures necessary for mediawiki:PageNumbers.js to do its magic and generate the page number displays:
Method 1
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/516|num=496}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/517|num=497}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/518|num=498}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/519|num=499}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/520|num=500}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/521|num=501}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/522|num=502}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/523|num=503}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/524|num=504}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/525|num=505}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/526|num=506}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/527|num=507}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/528|num=508}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/529|num=509}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/530|num=510}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/531|num=511}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/532|num=512}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/533|num=513}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/534|num=514}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/535|num=515}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/536|num=516}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/537|num=517}}
{{Page|Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/538|num=518}}
Method 2
 index="Public General Statutes 1896.djvu"
 from ="516"
 to   ="538"
For I hope obvious reasons I recommend use of Method 2. AuFCL (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Can you give the exact differences, because the idiot I am I having a hard time seeing the issue, is it because the Pre union pages have the header in the 'body' rather than seperate? Also do we need an option on <pages> to supress the div generation so that this is not an issue in the future? BTW I've got NO objections to someone re-working the templates or the pages so they work consistently in line with what's SUPPOSED to happen. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I tested something... Pages 35 and 36 in structural terms should be identical, (the entry template embeds the |- row, marker. So it would seem to solely be about how <pages> works. Is there an easy way to suppress the div so that what pages generates isn't as pre-baked, raw=yes param maybe?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
A side issue is that the current approach overloads the transclusion limits a bit.. There's probably a better way of doing it :(, if someone wants to write a script to re-work the formatting to something simpler, I don't have any objections. It's a shame there isn't a subst function that gives you the 'output' (like Lua does) over a direct substitution, because for a large number of the table based works I've done it would be rather helpful, in that in quite a few instances what the template is nominaly parsing only needs to be parsed once and intelligently subst, rather than what the the current direct subst does. for all the scripting possible Wikitext is still remarkably static.16:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Another aside Template:Statute table/entry and some of it's relations have reached the limits of maintainability in their complexity. They really need an overhaul :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Index:Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes.djvu Tables again[edit]

I'm now rather dissapointed. For performance reasons I was reworking the formatting on the efforts I'd made in terms of the index portion of this work, so that it wasn't calling a template for each row of the table which would eventually hit the transclusion limits. However in re-working the formatting, I seem to hit the SAME issues with spanned tables that I've come up against on previous efforts.

Comparing Page:Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes.djvu/365 and Page:Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes.djvu/366, the latter seems to include some undesired whitespace, even though structurally the pages should be simmilar.

Can someone that's more experienced please come up with a "long-term" fix? Whilst there are workarounds such as using <includeonly> portions vs actual headers, this doesn't seem to behave consistently.unsigned comment by ShakespeareFan00 (talk) .

Without more specifics, I don't notice any problems with whitespace on page 366. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Need a short, left aligned heavy line in table[edit]

The fourth row from the bottom of the table of this page Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 51.djvu/780 starts with a heavy line. Tried using {{bar|2}}, but I couldn't bold it so, I am looking for help for any acceptable solution. — Ineuw talk 01:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Unicode? AuFCL (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Went through hundreds of Unicode characters of BabelMap, and there is a thick "minus" sign ➖➖ but they are too short, and there would be a gap with two side by side. Perhaps, I should leave it as is? — Ineuw talk 06:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks AuFCL, didn't realize that you already corrected it. — Ineuw talk 06:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Unicode block (hexadecimal) 2500 through 259F has a very useful line-drawing/block-graphic set which largely "fit together." I simply looked through that until I found some likely matches. AuFCL (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Directly Trannscluded pages in mainspace[edit]

Following on from a previous concern, How do we find pages that are directly transcluded, as opposed to using {{page}}? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

This works. AuFCL (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Not as many as I thought. Anyone want to consider adding them to a to-do list?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I have transcluded pages that way in the past. Made a note in one work that "other [transclusion] methods render 'blank' pages in PDF conversion." Not sure if that still applies? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Transclusion of tables on several pages[edit]

I just made the index of Pekinese Rhymes/Index as a long table spanning several pages (is it the correct way? Should I have used the TOC templates?)

Each page is individually OK, but when I look at the end result on the link above, there are two problems:

  • The first line of each page is not shown in the transclusion
  • The page shortcut does not work and links to , apart for the first page

Could someone with more experience on transclusion look at what I did wrong?

Koxinga (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You were so close! Unfortunately the Help: page for this is slightly misleading and so I won't refer you there. To address your issues in order:
  • To display the first line of each page (in transclusion) requires a little sleight-of-hand: add |- after the {{nop}} at the start of the page content proper. This fixes the "first line" problem but wipes out the insertion point where mediawiki:PageNumbers.js inserts the page links (which kind of addresses your second point.)
  • To reestablish a structure PageNumbers.js above can work with, rearrange the last line and footer of each transcluded table page (except the last) from:
    <!-- content end/footer start -->
    <!-- footer end -->
to instead:
<!-- content end/footer start -->
<!-- footer end -->
Mad as it might seem the {{nop}} marks the point (in the transcluded result) at which the "next page" link will eventually be established. Yes it is a confusing mess of compromises!
Please check if the current result is per your expectations. AuFCL (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! The page link is one line above the actual first line, but that's ok. I did try to follow Help:Page_breaks#Tables_across_page_breaks, but without really understanding the {{nop}} template usage, and as you said, it does not really work. It would be a good idea to update it.
Koxinga (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The "page link is one line above the actual first line" is the result of the compromise I tried to describe before. If you choose a page link and hover your mouse pointer over it the secret is revealed. Note the start of the greyed area indicating the extent of the sub-page starts at the end of the prior where did that second {{nop}} go? Same spot!
To forestall the question "why does the page link not start at the other {{nop}}, the one at the top of the actual page?" sadly you will find that by the time the final HTML has been prepared the parser has completely eliminated all trace of it. In effect that is the base problem (remember those page shortcuts back to Main page?) all over again in another form. (Yes this explanation is slightly glib. The proper answer is even messier and might even involve impolitic language.) AuFCL (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
@AUFcl- That may help explain why some of my table code wasn't rendering right, however confusingly the above tail-nopping is NOT what the current help says you are supposed to do with tables over multiple pages. As I've said elsewhere it's very confuding for new users and needs a long term soloution.  :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
O.K. Might as well lay out the full horror. In the most general case all "intermediate" pages in a long-spaning-table-transclusion require three insertions of {{nop}}:
  1. one just at the top of the content section (really protecting the necessary but invisible new-line which everybody forgets is essential for wikitable (|-, |+ or | etc.) recognition;
  2. one just at the end of the content section (provides a break in table flow where the next page's link will be later rendered); and
  3. one just at the top of the footer section (new-line protection as above.) This last can frequently be omitted if no visible footer content (e.g. page number) is present. A real empty line works here as well but as some "clean-up" scripts remove this I personally dislike that approach.
The first and third cases above "disappear" having served their marker purpose to the parser and leave no remnant in the final HTML. Case 2 usually transforms (processed via MediaWiki:Proofreadpage_pagenum_template) into a special hidden span carrying sufficient information for MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js to later construct the page number link.
Note that none of the above usages correspond precisely to that of "normal" {{nop}} usage at the bottom of a page ending with a complete paragraph, and so could be viewed as technical abuses of the spirit of that template. AuFCL (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Based on the above I boldy updated - Help:Page_breaks but would appreciate you reviewing BEFORE stuff breaks further.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree with the assessment that there are three requirements for {{nop}} in tables. I believe there is only case (1), and in my experience with tables, (2) and (3) are not of value, and may in fact be problematic. Noting that for your example 3, a hard return suffices, it is just a requirement for the table close to be on a new line. {{nop}} is a "no operation" that basically holds the shape of the page. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with every step of this logic—except the very conclusion. The remaining problem is that that hard return is invisible to most editors; both on "real" pages and in Help:. Even a dummy HTML comment (or if you prefer, a self-closing <wiki/>) would provide the necessary visibility. However, lets not change anything for now and see if the current instructions are still misread (as I expect they will be.) AuFCL (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, as the Help: pages currently stand I predict that accurately following the instructions laid down will result in PageNumbers.js creating a page link for the first, and only the first page in each full-table sequence, due to the resulting table structure leaving no suitable hooks (</td></tr><span>...</span><tr> worketh not—yes that is meta sarcasm) in which to insert the all-essential-but-invisible page-link-spans I (tried but evidently failed to) describe above. AuFCL (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
What you've said in the Help , doesn't accord with what you told me, and others have updated some of my efforts to, namely to put a |- directly after the {{nop}} on intermediate pages. Can we have ONE consistent approach please? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


Is there anyone that knows how to create the remaining tables for this book: Index:South African Geology - Schwarz - 1912.djvu. I am not sure if I should just to Wikitables or find a way to make them more similar to the book. Any help would be appreciated. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

ae ligature with Umlaut/diaeresis[edit]

On this page and the following pages, the word 'Faroe' is written using an ae-ligature (æ) with diaeresises. Is it possible that the printer was using this instead of ǣ? I can't find this character and am wondering if it is even part of Unicode. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what the intent of the printer was, but the character is æ̈. Unicode provides for arbitrary combinations of base character with diacritic through combining characters.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Thanks! I really couldn't find the character anywhere. Where or how did you find it? --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
It's æ plus a combining diaeresis (U+0308). I'm afraid I don't have a user-friendly explanation of how I produced it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Timm vogt[edit]

If anyone can help me find anything on Timm Vogt born 1789 in Schleswig-Holstein Germany. He marryed Margaretha Thodt--they both left Germany (Departure was Aug. 31 1856 and Arrival Sept.16 1856 New York.They were Residence of Davenport Iowa on March 3 1858..Timm died Oct. 15 1861----I;m trying to find Timm Vogts parents and noth9ing comes up--and the same on Margaretha Thodt...There childre who were born in Schleswig-Holstein Germany MArie Katharina Vogt 1816-1901--------son John Christan Vogt 1822-1905---Anna Vogt 1829-1887----Magdalena Helena (Lena) Oct 2 1831. Thank you so much---Yvonne Vogt----I hope I can find someone to help me---someone told me about this site and I;m trying so hard to find my family-Thanks again Yvonne72.169.80.133 16:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)Y

Templatescript gadget OCR cleanup[edit]

Two minor adjustments are needed in the User:Pathoschild/templatescript.js. The script does not eliminate the spaces surrounding hyphens and mdashes. Is this adjustment can be made locally? — Ineuw talk 08:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Umm. Want to try for local MediaWiki:TemplateScript/proofreading.js (see variable pageCleanup: line 198 and following…)? AuFCL (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I am already negotiating with Pathoschild to check why my changes are not working.A Smiley.jpgIneuw talk 05:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved from Scriptorium and merged with related issues[edit]

Proofread tools gone from edit menu[edit]

Did some change go through in the past half hour?

When editing in the Page namespace, I can no longer access the "Proofread" option, which includes the much needed button to enlarge the source file image. Also, the special characters menu and associated items are all showing up inside the left-hand edit window instead of across the top. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be back now, but was gone for quite a while. Anyone have a guess why? Or had the same issue? --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Nope. Tools are gone again. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The Proofread Tools in my left sidebar weren't working for me for a while this morning. They vanished when I clicked "Show changes" at the bottom of my screen. Then they came back. Weird. Outlier59 (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Gone again. Guess I'll go do something else for awhile. Outlier59 (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Also having page editing problems and posted about it HERE Perhaps if we post the circumstances, this may help to troubleshoot the issue quicker. — Ineuw talk 17:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
For bug issues it is probably worth talking about which skin you are using, and which tool bar you are utilising. I see no issues with old toolbar, and in monobook. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thanks for the reminder. Unfortunately, changing the skin to monobook, did not change the behaviour. — Ineuw talk 05:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


I use vector and the enhanced toolbar. The problem does not always appear. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Never mind the last update to mediawiki software, the previous release required me to (re)enable option "Show edit toolbar" in Preferences/Editing/Editor to restore proper operation under the Vector skin in Firefox. Thus far I have not observed any of the complaints above (#invoke superstition of choice.) To clarify: I currently have both "Show edit toolbar" and "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" enabled; but "Enable wizards for inserting links, tables as well as the search and replace function" disabled. AuFCL (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I don't manage to reproduce these issues. Could you please follow the steps described in this procedure and put the result here (or better in the phabricator ticket). Tpt (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The MediaWiki update was on June 21st. I don't think any of us had problems that day. @Ineuw: could your edits in this series -- [1] have anything to do with this? Outlier59 (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The overall proofreading.js module was disconnected/disabled when I made the changes. Also, each of the edits refer to separate modules. More importantly for everyone who has a particular problem, the bug report site wants each issue to be reported separately with pertinent details, OS, browser, etc. — Ineuw talk 15:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Strange happenings when using 'Show preview'[edit]

Whenever I click to preview in edit mode, my layout changes from over/under to side by by side, with the enhanced editing toolbar disappearing. I wonder if this is happening to others as well? — Ineuw talk 05:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Uploaded this image to show what's happening File:Change of edit layout.jpg. — Ineuw talk 05:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I haven't had that particular problem, but was having a similar looking issue today, as described in Wikisource:Scriptorium#‎Proofread tools gone from edit menu. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the link (may I use EP?). I suspected that it may have been caused by a newly activated script, but I was wrong. This happens only after proofreading, and then previewing a page. It seems that it is related to a change on a page. It does not happen if the page is not disturbed. Not that this info helps any of us to resolve the issue. — Ineuw talk 17:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It also happens to me with Show changes after making a change. Normally I have a list of Page tools in my sidebar (Add header, Add footer, Clean up OCR, etc.) when I'm editing page space. That list comes from User:Outlier59/common.js -- which is obviously a javascript file link, but I have no idea what it does or means. I don't know javascript. I was told to add that page soon after I started editing here. In my Preferences (Appearance tab) it applies to all skins I use. It looks like something MediaWiki manages. EncycloPetey has a .css page (no .js page) and Ineuw has a .js page and a .css page. So it doesn't seem like something in our own local settings. The skins are coming from MediaWiki. Should I post a question at mw:Project:Support_Desk? Frankly, I probably wouldn't understand the answer.... Outlier59 (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Mpaa: Do you have any idea what's causing this problem? Outlier59 (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Outlier59: It's definitely not local! The periodic changes in the core software and the extensions that support the needs of various wikis, do have hiccups from time to time, and it's not the first or the last time. I do have some familiarity with the process to report the issue, and the more people report problems in this post, the more it helps our javascript deities at Wikimedia. (Tlaloc of the Aztecs excluded). THIS PAGE indicates that there was a new version installed on June 21. — Ineuw talk 23:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'll try editing again tomorrow. Mpaa, very sorry to bother you needlessly. Outlier59 (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi! I don't manage to reproduce these issues. Could you please follow the steps described in this procedure and put the result here (or better in the phabricator ticket). Tpt (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tpt: I updated the bug report with info about the OS and the browsers. A separate report is needed for each issue specifying the OS and the Browser & version. — Ineuw talk 15:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
@Outlier59: Just to be helpful. Your installation of the proofreading tool in common.js and your assumption about the tool's main code location are both correct. Currently, the tool doesn't appear in my sidebar either, and common.css has nothing to do with the sidebar tools. — Ineuw talk 16:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
It would be important to all who experience problems to specify the OS and the browser + version. In my case all of these problems come from Firefox. I tried the same with Chrome and everything works. If anyone has problems, please list the OS and browser + version here, or create a new bug report if the problem is not the same as task T138554. This bug report was only in relation to page layout changes in Firefox 48.01b and 48.02b. Now, I will have to file another bug report about the missing Pathoschild Page tools. — Ineuw talk 21:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Douay Rheims Bible[edit]

I'd like to revive work on Firstly, from what I gather, it hasn't been worked on since 2009, but is in some kind of archive state, is that correct?

I want to delete what's there and start again. I have reasons for this, which I can explain.

Also, a project like this, I haven't worked on anything mediawiki ever before, and I need a really simple beginner's guide. "Editing wikisource for dummies", teaching from scratch, no prior knowledge assumed.

It's hard to know where to start. unsigned comment by User:DavidPorter65 (talk) .

Your first stop if you want to learn how to edit Wikisource should be Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource, and especially if you want to start fresh, Help:Beginner's guide to adding texts.
I'd discourage the idea of "delete what's there and start again". A better way would be to start the proofreading process separately, and if your added version is similar enough to the version we've started on, we can merge them. On the other hand, if you have a good reason to get rid of what we've got so far, we can have a discussion. There are a couple of us (me and User:Outlier59 for example) who are slowly trying to improve WS's Bible translation collection and I'd be happy to hear your rationale and help you out. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: I'll put some comments on User talk:DavidPorter65. -- Outlier59 (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)