From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 January 2012, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.



Re Number of Edits[edit]

Hi, Firstly please excuse and allow me to apologise for this question which I am unable to find an answer by myself. If the question is too basic please direct me to the area I can put the question. How does a person know how many edits they have done on Wikisource? Now I'm talking miniscule in terms of the prodigious efforts of many many people; nonethless I would like to monitor this item. I went to Wikisource, User contributions, and Preferences and found '0' edits. Yet since September I must have done 60 or 70 up to the end of December. Not much to brag about I realise but I'm just beginning and hope to do better. Can you please help. Victorbyron (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Go to Special:Contributions/Victorbyron and scroll to the bottom of the page. You should find a list of links. Click on the right-hand one "Edit Counter". This will take you to a page that will give you a total count of your edits and a pie-chart with the number of edits in the various namespaces. (Don't worry about the two sections at the bottom about opting in—these are more useful for people with thousands of edits to track what's happening and where they've been.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Note that the Contributions is also the link at the top of the page "My contributions" and sulutil:Victorbyron for all WMF — billinghurst sDrewth 23:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Than you for responding Beeswaxcandle and your advice solving this dilemma of mine. I'll go see now. Happy New Year to you and thanks ````
Thank you for responding billinghurst. Prior to seeking help and wanting to check my meagre (but exciting for me) efforts for 2011 I went to the Contributions link at the top of the page and it came up with nothing. I then linked to Preferences and the total number of editors is '0'. That explanation aside which I don't understand, I will now go and have another go and try to see what sulutil:Victorbyron is. Happy New Year to you and thank you. More though, billinghurst, thank you for leading the path way that I was able to follow the last months to December. I was stuck with no editing to do and you went into the text I am editing and made sense of some of those difficult pages. And although I don't know what I am doing yet, I was able to follow your editing, coyping it, and some magic in editing took place. I wasn't able to sort out the pieces of editing that did not work; nor although I copied your editing to the letter/to the mark, did I understand why it didn't work. That made me realise I must find the user manual that will explain all of this. But a big thank you for keeping some pages going for me so I could continue to edit the text. Victorbyron (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Beeswaxcandle - Thank you for tracking me to the Special:Contributions/Victorbyron, Edit Counter (edits and pie-chart) pages. Useful information because it encourages competition with oneself; and the good oil on the opting in setions. Victorbyron (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
billinghurst - I revisited the top link Contributions and low and behold it worked; there was some info on that page this time around. I'm not sure what sulutil:Victorbyron is all about but that page indicates SUL is not part of my radar at present. So I'll check the meaning out a little later. Thank you very much. Victorbyron (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Re markup skills[edit]

Hi again, I have been editing my first book on Wikisource by Dawson, James.(1881)'Australian aborigines : the languages and customs of several tribes of aborigines in the western district of Victoria, Australia' Publisher G. Robertson. When I began my markup skills were zilch and I was able to sort of get away with that because every word edited was a new experience. However, while I am receiving very kind assistace from an established editor on Wikisource, whose example I have used (copied) in the editing I am doing, I'm really not sure why I am using a certain or particular markup, simply because I have little knowledge on it. I am now concerned that my markup skills desperately need a huge learning curve if I am to continue with this book, which I would dearly love to do. I have no idea how to progress with this book and I have nothing else to edit, not that I want to go to something else, I would like to properly finish this book, which I enjoy immensely. Can you please advise me where I can search for a Wikisource guide/manual that will contain all the possible markup (I'm stuck on columns presently, and they appear sideways on the page) I can learn that I might be using on editing books on Wikisource. I'm stuck with nothing to do by way of editing, and have to carpe diam the time as it presents itself between busy times. Your help would be very much appreciated. Thank you. Victorbyron (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I recommend you start with Help:Editing Wikisource. It gives a good summary of basics. Then move across to Help:Templates, Help:Page breaks, Help:Proofread#Formatting conventions and m:Help:Table. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Beeswaxcandle, I will gather all these 'help' documents and read voraciously and learn. Thank you for helping to open the door to knowledge for me and to clear away the land of the unknown. I have found that the small amount of editing that I can claim as my bit is nonethless an incredibly peaceful task, and I just absolutely love it when I want some time for thinking space and there it is, enter the world of editing a text, enjoy the interaction with the book with all its amazing story line (it is a 19th century text) at the same time receiving peaceful contemplation in return. So thanks for helping me improve my knowledge so I can be more fruitful in my endeavours.Victorbyron (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Beeswaxcandle lots of informative and interesting reading here; terrifically helpfuul. Victorbyron (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Please excuse the typo errors in these messages. The problem stems from a new keyboard that has individual keys sticking and also a keyboard that can't keep up with my typing speed so even words get left out because the keyboard is behind my keystrokes. It's only weeks old and I have purchased badly so back to getting another brand that will keep up with me!Victorbyron (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Proofread error: "no such file"[edit]

Hi, technical question.

I've tried to install Proofread on a fresh MW site, and it gave the error above every time I tried to make and index page (source came from and uploaded fine, even though no thumbnail on the File description). I've done this several times in id.wikisource too, so I'm stuck with this error for more than a year now. Anyone can help me?


MediaWiki       1.16.0
PHP     5.2.10 (apache2handler)
MySQL   5.0.77

CheckUser (Versi 2.3)
Collection (Versi 1.4)
PDF Handler 
ProofreadPage (Versi 2009-04-20)

confirmEditSetup, pr_main, wfRssExtension dan wfSetupParserFunctions
<pagelist>, <pagequality>, <pages> dan <rss>
expr, if, ifeq, ifexist, ifexpr, rel2abs, switch, time, timel dan titleparts

I've added new namespaces (100-103) and updated the database, but I've got the following error when I saved the index page:

Ada kesalahan sintaks pada permintaan basis data. Kesalahan ini mungkin menandakan adanya sebuah bug dalam perangkat lunak. Permintaan basis data yang terakhir adalah:
   (Permintaan SQL disembunyikan)
dari dalam fungsi "". Basis data menghasilkan kesalahan "1064: You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '0,0,0,0,0)' at line 1 (localhost)".

Even though it generates error, the index page was saved sucessfully. But it gave the "Error: no such file" message like the one in Index:Federal_Cases,_Volume_19.djvu. While the File:Federal_Cases,_Volume_19.djvu was corrupt in this case, mine was okay. So again, I don't know what's wrong with my installation.

Many thanks before. Bennylin (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm crossposting this to mw:Extension talk:Proofread Page. Hopefully someone know the answer. Bennylin (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The same problem is currently in evidence at Index:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 2.djvu, FWIW. Tarmstro99 20:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Uploading a new version of the underlying file (created with the pdf2djvu tool) fixed my problem. Tarmstro99 22:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Advanced search[edit]

Is there an advanced search facility on this wiki? For instance, could I search for "to be, or not to be" in author "William Shakespeare" and discover that that phrase is in The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark/Act 3. Spinningspark (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If you just click the search button with an empty search field, it will take your through a configurable search criteria. Instructions are similar to at Wikipedia, ie. w:Help:Searching. The difficulty will be that as the work by Shakespeare is so familiar and so quoted, that it is reviewed in many literary works, or commentary works. If you are just looking to dig up a quote and narrow it down then our sister site wikiquote: may be more efficient for the purpose. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that's useful, but it does not really help here. The sort of data I am looking for are, for instance, a search <horse inauthor:Shakespeare> to discover what Shakespeare had to say about horses. It's the sort of search I do all the time on Google books. Many other sites have an "author" field (Amazon, Worldcat, Google Scholar, Internet Arcive) and I am mildly surprised it does not exist here. Perhaps it should be suggested. SpinningSpark 18:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the functionality for that type of search doesn't exist on MediaWiki wikis.  :( We have very basic searching with not a lot of sophisticated features. I've been hoping for a really good search engine to be written, but it's not likely to happen soon.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
When you say "hoping", does that mean there is a proposal open somewhere. If it is on Bugzilla, please point me to it and I will go over there and add my vote to it. SpinningSpark 10:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
In meanwhile you can always use Google and restrict the search to WS. It works pretty well, even if not invented here ... If you try this search "to be, or not to be" "William Shakespeare" site:"" it will bring you right there. Maybe just luck … --Mpaa (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I found this proposal in the Bugzilla database. If you want to see this implemented, I encourage you to go over there and vote for it - but please don't leave comments unless you have something significant to add, it causes the mailing list to get spammed and annoys a lot of people. SpinningSpark 11:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, got the drift of your question, it is a question about metadata. Unfortunately mediawiki does not have a strong ability for the use of metadata, though we have been looking to utilise the components available. When Mediawiki does better allow for this, we will have the capability to better include it. With regard to searching, that is a separate process that sits over the top of the text itself, and will lend itself to better results, however, I am not certain that it is going to completely solve the problem. Again, all I can reinforce is that the means that we have look to utilise within our headers should better allow to adapt these components when extra functionality exists. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Roughly, a third of our first click-ins originate within en.WS itself, another third from our sisters (well wikipedia really) and the last third completely from Google search results. I get the feeling we're too preoccupied with giving "each other" reach arounds, translation abilities and other types of atta-boys to even capture any of the basic metadata found in most simple PDFs, get that seemlessly up onto Commons & finally over to our mainspace on Wikisource once something has been properly transcribed. We need to Pick an established standard already and inch our stuff over to actually utilizig it instead of the current series of starts, stops and other assorted fits when trying to craft "our own" variation on that same theme. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Bugzilla update. I was advised there to open a completely new request which now exists at bug 34011. At least someone is listening. Same message - if you want it implemented, go over there and vote for it. SpinningSpark 20:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Page number links in main space[edit]

At The International Cricket Match I can see the page number links on the lhs up to p30 but the expected p31 link isn't appearing. What am I doing wrong? Moondyne (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing. Its a known issue that tables spanning one or more pages in the Page: namespace do not "let" the interim page-break(s) & number(s) to render neatly, if at all, in the finished product when those pages w/the entire table is transcluded to the main namespace. Can't offer you more than that at the moment. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Strange because the tables are complete on each page:. Meh. Moondyne (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Ooops - I realized that afterwards so I took a closer look. After moving the <poem>'s inside each table cell holding a list of names rather than around the entire table itself, I realized the tables were indeed per page rather than spanned across breaks. The only thing I could think of was that stupid highlight thingy plus the use of extra pagebreak template(s) causes the last real pagelink to be "removed rather than refreshed". I added a blank nop to the next page and extended the range by one in the mainspace so it deletes a page without text instead of p.31. Not a pretty fix but it worked. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Separate issue

What's the story with all the redirects in the Page: namespace related to/for that work? Do we still need all that? -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No, they can all be deleted. Moondyne (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - all superseded re-directs deleted. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Found typos/possible ommissions...[edit]

1. I'm new here. 2. Am reading Robert Ervin Howard's works and found severaly typos which I'd like to correct without stepping on toes. 3. Would also like to know how Proofread of the Month works? NB I'm a sometime Wikipedia copyeditor. Thank you, Shir-El too (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, I have edited our standard welcome text to your talk page, which has the important links, and do see Help:Proofreading. With regard to the work that you identified with possible spelling/typos, as there can be several editions of works, we work to proofread either to our scanned copy (preferable) or to the version identified on the talk page of the work. We would generally reproduce "errors" in a work, though we may note them depending on the context. For the PotM, have a look at Wikisource:Proofread of the Month and the concept is simple, against a scanned work we proofread the OCR text, with the aim to complete the work to validated (each page proofed twice) for presentation. An example of this is this month's Wikisource:Featured texts. We are always open to suggestions for the next work, and love newbies assisting as we find it a great way to work collaboratively and to learn some tricks of the old farts around the site.winkbillinghurst sDrewth 13:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


Can someone please explain where I find images of a djvu-file? More concrete: Mollusca (proofread of the month), p. 188 needs an image. Are they available already, or how can I make them? Thanks, Dick Bos (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You can find them here: Commons:Category:Natural History - Mollusca, provided that someone has already prepared all of them. If you cannot find it, place {{image missing}} on the page and mark it as problematic. Image preparation process is a bit more complex, depending on how familiar you are with image processing. You basically need to download page images form Internet Archive in jp2 format (see HTTP link on left part of IA book page), crop the image, remove the colored background, if not white already, and upload them to Commons. For consistency, follow one of the already available images for naming convention, info, license and categorisation.--Mpaa (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, see Help:Adding images. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, folks. I did read the Help-page, but it was a little bit too - let's say - "technical" for me. I didn't understand much of it. I think I now understand more or less how it works, but if you don't mind I would like to leave this to a more experienced colleague for now. If I'm a bit more experienced myself with working on the djvu-files etc. I'll try it again! I promise. Greetings, Dick Bos (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I read your question slightly differently, though that could be me. I will answer it from the extraction perspective. The work that we are using is the scan available at naturalhistorymo00goss, and if you flick to the page of interest, then +++ to get it to the biggest magnification, you can right click and save the image. From there we can clean it up (trim/decolour/...) with (free) image software like IrfanView or Gimp, and then load it to Commons for addition to that category, and addition to the work. We are very happy for you to be in your comfort zone, and if this is an area where you need assistance then let us know. It is not my favoured place.<shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 14:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Is there a policy regarding linking to wikipedia (and for instance to authors on wikisource)? I ask this because on this page of the Mollusk-book all the species are linked, as are all the authors mentioned. It certainly looks good. But as far as I know it has not been done on any other page of this book (until now), so from the point of view of consistency it might be better to leave these links. - Dick Bos 06:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no consensus. It was part of the annotation policy but that was disputed and the discussion stalled without being resolved. Keeping it consistent within a specific book, such as the POTM, is the best way forward for now. You could bring it up on the talk page of the index. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I would vary that slightly. Local wikilinks are positively encouraged with that being authors and book titles, with some other wikilinks to local portals and sister wikis being one where there is an element of debate. I have been actively linking authors and titles on the pages on which I have been working, though /204 has not been among them. One comment is that I would generally only link an author once per chapter in the text, so just needs an element of awareness about where things are at. Often looking at the transcluded pages is worthwhile and making the modifications that suit. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem seeing only half the picture of the page[edit]

Since one or two days I have a problem every now and then. The right side of the screen I work in for editing pages is partly black (the lower part). So I can see only the upper part of the "image" of the page. What's going wrong? I believe it does not happen when I just view a page, but when I want to edit, this happens. The same thing happens when I use vertical lay out. Who can help me? Greetings, Dick Bos (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is Commons not giving you the full image, and when getting into the edit mode, you are getting an image thumbnail requested to be of a certain size, and if it fails, the cached version in the proxy can be hard to shake. You can try to purge (swap into the url … action=purge) — billinghurst sDrewth 07:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
If you put the page on purple (Problematic proofreading), you 'll see the whole page like you have to see it. Then you can edit it again (page is again half black) and give it the stage Proofread. WeeJeeVee (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

PDF encoding problem[edit]

Uploaded a test pdf file with text ocr-ed in Finereader [1].

When I copy text from PDF I get:

Võ i t l e ja mõ l emal küljel  s õ i t s id Konrad von Mont-Fitchet 
ja Albe rt de Malvoisin, kes teotsesid tema risti-isadena. 
Nemad kandsid ordu valgeid rahuriideid. Nende kannul 
ratsutasid teised ordu kaaslased hulga kannupoiste  ja paaž idega mustas riides, kellest  ü k s k o rd pidid saama tempelordu rüütlid.

But when I open this text page in Wikisource [2], I get:

V�itleja m�lemal k�ljel s�itsid Konrad von Mont-Fitchet ja Albert de Malvoisin, kes teotsesid tema risti-isadena. Nemad kandsid ordu valgeid rahuriideid. Nende kannul ratsutasid teised ordu kaaslased hulga kannupoiste ja paazidega mustas riides, kellest �kskord pidid saama tempelordu r��tlid.

The encoding is messed up in wiki page. How to fix this encoding problem? (before uploading the whole book) --WikedKentaur (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you run the OCR scan or was it run before you got the file? The problem is that Finereader isn't recognising letters with accents. I haven't used Finereader myself but a quick google suggests running it with multiple languages selected (say English, Spanish and French). That way it is more likely to recognise these symbols as letters. Finereader apparently also has a Language Editor, which you may be able to use to help it recognise these letters. If you ran the scan yourself, you could try it again with one of those methods. Otherwise, you may just have to enter the letters in manually during proofreading. Someone on Estonian Wikisource might also be able to point you in the direction of software, or a patch, that can handle accents. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Finereader recognizes these letters -- I can copy the recognized text from pdf file -- but the problem is that the regonnized letter aren't shown in the wikisource text edit window -- [3] -- shows


instead of


which is as regognized text in PDF. --WikedKentaur (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll need to check this later on a separate computer. The PDF is OK and has all the right glyphs. The problem might be that you are using a PDF instead of a DjVu file. I'm pretty sure the proofreading extension can handle accents; it was originally created for French Wikisource and I think I've seen it happen. However, the software was originally developed to work with DjVu files. PDF support is a more recent addition and it might not be completely functional. I've tried to convert it but it did not work properly, there is no text layer at all: Index:Test cropped.djvu (I will be deleting this file soon; it's just to test this problem). I need different software on a different computer to look into it. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The djvu file works just fine [4]. Looks like this text edit box encoding problem is PDF specific. Where should I report this bug? --WikedKentaur (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Bug reports got to Bugzilla. For reference, you are reporting a bug in the proofread page extension. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, opened bug report: --WikedKentaur (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

interlang links[edit]

I am trying to make an interlanguage link to the (the "old wikisource" , or: project with languages that do not have their own page (yet)). Any chance I can get a link in the interlanguage menu?

Specifically, I'd like to add a link to Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union, which would be fy:Ferdrach oangeande de Europeeske Uny if a Frisian wikisource/wikiboarne existed, but is now at oldwikisource:Ferdrach oangeande de Europeeske Uny, which I don't get to show up in the left column at languages... Thanks! L.tak (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Bottom line is there is no good fix but several java script hacks have been developed as interim workarounds. This is a continuing problem due to the way that Wikisource was originally set up, though there has been progress, Bugzilla: 32189 promises (well, Siebrand and Roan agree with the solution, so that's as close to a promise as we get unless Brion comments again) to fix the problem - most likely by moving multilingual wikisource (aka "oldwikisource) to mul.wikisource, or at least making mul work for interlanguage links. Until then there are two or three workarounds, none of which are entirely satisfactory. User:Candalua has a work around that finds all links to the multilingual wikisource and moves them to a single link in the sidebar, this has the disadvantage that it doesn't distinguish between [[:oldwikisource:]] and [[oldwikisource:]] and there's no known fix to that problem as the two render the same in html (which is also exactly why they don't behave differently when used normally). The other two solutions are similar to each other, the first was created by User:Kingpin13 and me, it normally uses a duplicate interwiki language link, usually Arabic if it exists because it's first, and uses a script to convert it to a link to the multilingual wikisource, that's how we do it here and on the mainpage. It doesn't have to be a duplicate, so it still works on your page even though it's the only interwiki. Depending on how fast your system loads the page, you may see the dummy Arabic link for a moment or two, then it will change. User:Beau apparently has an improved version, though I have not tried it. The solutions are discussed more at here. Kingpin13's and my solution is currently implemented in our common.js, so all you have to do is is follow the instructions at User:Doug/Oldws. I've implemented it for you so you could see. If you prefer one of the other solutions until the bugzilla is fixed, feel free to change it.--Doug.(talk contribs) 02:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    • BTW, as testing my work reminded me, you have to change the "Foo" parameter to the title of the target page ;). Also, I took this opportunity to change the interwiki from "Old Wikisource" to more appropriate "Multilingual".--Doug.(talk contribs) 03:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    • And one more thing, or maybe two ;) : You could submit a bugzilla expressly for fy to link to multilingual wikisource, I'm not sure how that would be taken at the moment though. You also could modify the js to make the link say "Frisian" rather than multilingual when a particular parameter is included. --Doug.(talk contribs) 03:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
He Doug, thanks for giving me the full picture here. I will react on bugzilla indicating that both things would be very benificial (mul to show that öld wikisource" is not a thing which is almost phased out and the easy way to link to the project (possibly in conncetion with Template:Interwiki-info to specify something like (Frysk), which would be clear enough. Enabling a redirect from all non-existing domains, e.g. to have fy.wikisource/article redirect to wikisource/article would for most interlangs would be even more helpful as it's not important for the reader to know on which project he/she is, as long as it's clear to which language version of a document he/she is moving) (IMO).

Marshall Claxton painting, "Christ Blessing the Children"[edit]


I recently came across an OLD painting / probably print by Marshall Claxton engraved by Samuel Bellin titled "Christ Blessing the Children".

It is in a frame and I do not wish to remove it because of the age.

My question is; I am sure this is probaly a very old print, but!!!!!

Is the origonal painting still located in the Schoolroom of the Church St. Stephen's, Westminster? Or do you know were the origonal painting is?

Thank you;

You can contact me at; (Email redacted)

This not really a question we can help you with, sorry. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

side by side view is not appearing[edit]

i was trying to transcribe dnb vol 4, and the side by side view of ocr text and document scan stopped appearing.Slowking4 (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikisource had some changes made to its core software a day or two ago and now some folks are seeing the same thing as you are. Follow the main discussion HERE. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

nop not working[edit]

Although I put a nop-template at the end of page 84 of Manual_of_the_New_Zealand_Flora/Tiliaceæ, the text is just continuing on the same line. Can anyone explain, please! - Dick Bos (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. It was due to using {{smaller}} when you meant {{smaller block}}. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

business inteligence[edit]

any one can help me how to get market inteligence? unsigned comment by Sasikanth (talk) .

This is not a question that we can help you with. See WS:WWI for a description of Wiksource. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Help help[edit]

When should I use WS:S/H and not WS:RFA, or visa versa? Moondyne (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Long story. Short answer ... whichever you want, we generally have both watched. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Where did my article go?[edit]

Spent quite a bit of time creating my first article as a new user, saved it, got a message that I did not have a header, clicked the link to 'header help' and article disappeared. Is it lurking somewhere do I have to start again? unsigned comment by JoannaMary (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2012.

This appears to be your first edit here (and you have no deleted contributions). Do you mean one of our sister projects like Wikipedia? If not, what were you working on? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well - I thought I was adding something to Wikisource! I have just logged into Wikipedia and cannot find anything in my name there either. I was attempting to put on an entry for an author, Arthur A Sykes, who is the translator of a book on Wikisource. This page refers I clicked on Sykes, could not find an entry for him, and wanted to add what little I know about him as an author. I completed my text, previewed it, saved it, then got the 'you have not got header message' and then when I clicked on the link to find out what to do, could not get back to my page. JoannaMary

It sounds like you navigated away from the page without successfully saving. If that is the case, then you will have to start again. :-( Hesperian 11:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Stupid newbie question[edit]

Hey, I'll even delete this after some kind soul answers.

So, I'm new here. I went to and began reading. Then I came to a section heading, "§ 2.—Of the climate ana houses in Flatland."

Note that it says "ana" instead of "and".

So, I figure this could be my first edit, fixing a typo.

But, I have some stoopid questions:

1. Am I allowed to fix it? Surely someone else saw this and left it.

2. If I am allowed to fix it, is there a photographic image I can look at to verify that it is a typo? Or do I just assume that it is a typo and BOLDly fix it?

3. Do I simply edit it the same way as in WP? Or is there a special tool that I should use?

4. Or is all of this explained already in some convenient Help-like place, possibly even called Help?

Thanks! Be kind to noobie.

David spector (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a typo, but as it it is in the original scan (see this page Page:Flatland,_a_Romance_of_Many_Dimensions_(1884).djvu/17), it has been faithfully transcribed. That is the policy, so the answer to your question is do not fix it. Someone has seen it (actually at least two persons as the process foresees a 2 step validation. If you hoover on it, a message will appear with the correct spelling. To visualise the image of the text, click the blue page numbers on the left to see one single page, or the Source tab on top to see the whole book. Changes are welcome but must be documented and properly sourced. Editing is the same as in WP, with the addition of the Proofread extension where a text is supported by a scanned text. Please refer to the Help:Contents for more info. or some other user that will continue the post here :-)--Mpaa (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Fascinating. Seeing a new verb "hoover" with no definition. But it's a start, thanks! David spector (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

My spelling is horrible :-) I meant "hover", if it makes more sense …--Mpaa (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Question on Copyright[edit]

I want to add the text for the Gregory Deal. For those not familiar with Irish Politicial History, the Gregory Deal was a confidence and supply agreement negotiated between the leader of Fianna Fail Charles Haughey and the T.D. for Dublin Central, Tony Gregory. The agreement was reached in the aftermath of the February 1982 Irish General election. In return for supporting Haughey as Taoiseach Gregory demanded a massive £100 million Punt cash injection for Gregory's Dublin Central constituency which at the time was the poorest in Ireland. The agreement was made public when Gregory entered it into the Dail record. I currently have a copy of the deal. It's in the form of an appendix in Gregory's biography. I'm just wondering would a document like that be subject to copyright rules or can I put it up on this site? Exiledone (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Tricky one, and one that I would need to think about. We cannot publish under fair use, so it is looking to see what is justifiable (Help:Copyright tags). My first question would be what is the copyright of the Dail record? How does Irish legislation deal with that and parliamentary records? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd assume there's no copyright on something said in parliament (Dail Eireann). I should add that the following was entered into the Dail record by Gregory. The actually copy of the deal which I have is much longer. Though there is a superscipt reference to it in the debates which I think means the entire document was entered into the Dail record. Ill forward you the link. Exiledone (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

We can't go on such an assumption. Statements made in Parliament may already be under copyright (e.g. reading a passage from a book) but exempt for purposes of using in Parliament or Parliament may hold the copyright to their records, or various other possibilities. We must know what the Irish copyright law is for such matters. An Act of Parliament would be a different matter altogether, as even if Irish law recognized a copyright to an Act, which would be unusual, it would not likely be recognized in the United States. Entering something on the record in Parliament is far different from Parliament passing a statute.--Doug.(talk contribs) 08:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Tabular data OCR?[edit]

I just resumed work on Richard Nixon's 1969 Presidential Daily Diary. It's essentially a giant tabular appointment book, which we represent with some excellent templates made by T. Mazzei. However, between the repetitive nature of the text, the uselessness of the scanned by column OCR which has to be scrapped entirely, and the work one has to put into arranging everything into the templates, it's pretty slow going, and with around 2000 pages that's a problem. If it were possible to have it automatically formatted and populated with the OCRed text, the job would be substantially faster and less tedious. Does anyone have access to OCR software which could handle that? Not asking anyone to see it through to the end, rather any output which could potentially be transformed into the formatted end would be tremendously helpful. Prosody (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding documents to wikisource[edit]


I have two documents - or rather, I have typed out the text of two documents, word for word - that can be included on wikisource and linked to relevant pages on wikipedia.

I have no idea how to do this and I find the help pages confusing. Can you help please?

Thanks Mark unsigned comment by (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2012‎.

Hello. Thanks for your offer to contribute. Here's the short version of what you need to do if you'd like to contribute a text:
1. Check if we already have it. Go to the search box in the upper right hand corner and type in some possible titles and see if it comes up with anything.
2. Confirm that it's eligible. Basically we accept any published work which we're legally allowed to distribute (i.e. no copyright problems). This usually means that the work's copyright has to have expired. If it was published before 1923 it's good. If it isn't, it could still be public domain, just provide some details and someone will research it.
3. Open a new page for the work and make header that gives information about the work. Type the title for the work in the search box in the upper right again, then click the red link that says "Create the page [title] on this wiki!" Then copy and paste the contents of the gray box from {{Header}} (the part in betweeen the squiggly brackets) into the new page. Next, fill out what you can. For example, if I were uploading The Tempest, I would fill it out like this.
 | title      = The Tempest
 | author     = William Shakespeare
 | translator = 
 | section    = 
 | previous   = 
 | next       = 
 | year       = 1610-11
 | notes      = 
The title, author, and year bits are the most important. If it isn't translated just leave translator blank. The rest are mostly for navigation in multi-page works, you don't have to worry about that yet.
4. Upload it. Copy and paste the work that you typed out into the new page after the header section. Then click save. You'll be redirected to the newly created page.
5. One last thing you should do is click "Talk" on the new page and then copy and paste the contents of the gray box from {{Textinfo}} (the part in betweeen the squiggly brackets) into that new page, then fill out what you can. This gives information about the edition you used so other editors can collaborate. For example, if I were uploading The Tempest, I would fill it out like this.
| edition      = Oxford Shakespeare, 1914
| source       = [physical book]
| contributors = ~~~
| progress     = Proofread and corrected {{75%}}
| notes        = 
| proofreaders = ~~~
The edition is the most important here, try to get down the publisher and date. The source is just a link to a website if it's from one or a mention that it's copied from a book otherwise. Writing three tidles in the contributors field just adds your username/IP so you're recorded as the editor. The progress thing is explained a little bit on the {{Textinfo}} page, basically if you've proofread something then just copy the "Proofread and corrected {{75%}}" bit. Proofreaders is same as contributors.
If you have any more questions feel free to ask. Thanks again. Prosody (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to proofread[edit]

I was wanting to add The Intrigues, Amours, & Adventures of Rachel Cunningham (available ) and for the Spanish wikisource, but it looks like you guys don't want plaintext and want me to proofread scans...can somebody upload the scans and get that page ready, for me to proofread it then? I guess one page would be on en. and one on es. if there is someone here who can do both? StillNotKing (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've started the upload of the first file. With the second one, I can't tell what the licence should be. Why is this document in the public domain (or licenced)? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
No help on this I suppose? The first I still cannot find, the second I cannot find on es. ; I believe all books are public domain, I assume the Long Now Foundation put it that way. StillNotKing (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, the above did not work (I'm not sure why). Anyway, I've done the first one manually: Index:Adventures of Rachel Cunningham.djvu. For the second one, it might be better to ask on Spanish Wikisource. Even if the Long Fow Foundation have licensed it, I don't know what licence they have used. Without that, the file my be deleted on Wikimedia Commons for not having a licence. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

PDF scan of a book with two pages per PDF page[edit]

Hello. I have a PD book which I'd like to do in Wikisource with Proofread, but it is scanned with two real pages per one PDF page. What should I do? Wizardist (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You could transcribe everything from each PDF page into the Page: namespace, the same as if you had one page of text with two columns on it. Angr 15:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I can do that, but question concerned quite a different side. Anyway, the solution I've found is to use <section /> tag. Wizardist (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't recommend that. We've had a number of these, especially on and too, I think. Simply convert to jpg or tiff and split it using the bot script that Inductiveload developed. Mattwj2002 also has the script, I've never used it but can probably dig it up and figure it out with some work. If it's OCRd you'll have to re-OCR it after the split of course, if you plan to use the OCR text as a starting point. Then either convert to DjVu or upload as jpegs to commons, depending on size and whether you can attach a usable text layer. Check with inductiveload for details.--Doug.(talk contribs) 08:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Here it is: User:Inductiveload/Scripts/Image splitter.--Doug.(talk contribs) 17:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I think using #lst for this is a profoundly bad idea.--Doug.(talk contribs) 12:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is the file: File:Geografija Eŭropy. Pradmova Ahlad.pdf. Wizardist (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Yes, this is a classic case and can be split quite easily using ImageMagick and Inductiveload's script, I am fairly certain - I'll see if I can do it or get it done. So this is for posting on the Belarusian Wikisource, I take it.--Doug.(talk contribs) 14:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I would make it myself, but I have Linux on the desktop at my job, my laptop is on Windows and I'm not aware of the ways to accomplish here, so your help would be very appreciated! Yes, this file is for the newly created Belarusian Wikipedia. Thanks :) Wizardist (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I encountered that two-page scan problem so I saved each scanned image as two pages and then cropped them in half creating two .jpg images. If any were skewed or messed up in any way I corrected that image before placing all images into a PDF file. For example, sometimes images are rotated too far to the right, or left, so I rotated them to vertical and re-saved the former bad image. If there were library stamps, or bookplates, I edited those out completely so that even the .PDF file I created looks clean and properly vertical.—William Maury Morris II Talk 12:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

login name - stupid question - sorry[edit]

I've got a wikipedia account, but the login doesn't work on wikisource. Is this because there is a problem with my login or is it that I need a separate account for wikisource?

I hate asking entry-level questions like this and feel stupid as it's so basic, but there is no guidance on this in either the home or help pages.

Most likely you need to unify your wiki account info in order to use the same name and password as you've already setup in Wikipedia for accessing the other wiki sites. Go back to Wikipedia and login, open your user preferences and then open unify accounts (manage global accounts) then try again back here. Its been a long time but I'm pretty sure that's all you need to do nowadays. -- George Orwell III (talk)

Thank you, I found it on the WP user profile tab and it worked as you said. Asnac (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Help Please[edit]

Portal talk:Southern Historical Society Jump to: navigation, search

I found a few books on that have chapters on John Pelham I would like to help proofread - if somebody could upload them and set them up here?

GallantPelhams (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would not know how to place them on Wikisource but you are correct in they both are good books. However, neither of those two books are a part of the 52 volumes of the Southern Historical Society Papers so I suppose they would have to be placed elsewhere. They also have good illustrations. I am wondering if you are you planning to do only two John Pelham articles, one in each book, or other entries in those two books as well? Perhaps you would fare better if you re-post your message on 1 "Scriptorium" where abundant help exists. Everything I have stated is just a suggestion by a worker on the 52 SHSP volumes. Kindest regards, —William Maury Morris II Talk 01:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I would personally only do the parts on Pelham, but I assume with time other people would find other sections they found interesting, and in a few months or years we'd have the books complete. GallantPelhams (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand. There are unfinished books including some I intend to finish because I asked for them. But the two books that you mention are not a part of the volumes of the Southern Historical Society "Papers" which are all in volumes. What you need is for someone to set-up the books for you in a different area away from these 52 volumes. The books you mention are not a part of the 52 volumes. There are many excellent Southern books and they are in many places but none are a part of the 52 volumes of the Southern Historical Society "Papers" which are unique in their own right. I do not presently have the knowledge to set up books or I would do that for both you and myself. There are good books and I am a Southerner by birth and I love "Deart 'Ole Dixie" and these United States that I served in the military for in the late 1960s. You need to ask an administrator who knows how to set up your chosen books. Again, Scriptorium, is the place to ask for that and some good-hearted person with the know-how would help. The parts only on the Gallent Pelham would just be articles. Personally, I would try to get the books set up and if that did not work I would just find an area, give it a proper title, and then type in the articles. The administrators would notice if they are in a wrong area and probably just move your work to a proper area. I have done this with several books and as a few articles a few years back. I do not know what rules about that method would be at this time. I did those books a couple of years ago. Everyone is always busy helping others and trying to do works they themselves want to do but after you place a request in Wikisource Scriptorium someone will help you in some manner. It sometimes takes a couple of days from what I have seen for that help. If after placing your request in Scriptorium, I myself would just start writing articles but please don't try to blend them into the Southern Historical Society's "Papers" consisting of 52 established volumes. Okay? Kind regards, —William Maury Morris II Talk 18:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have copied all of the above in an attempt to ask for help with this situation. —William Maury Morris II Talk 18:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to upload IA material to the commons it's not a problem.

  1. From Internet archive, download the djvu file of the book to your computer:
    1. Access the download copy through the HTML page on the left panel of the book page: waritsheroes00ayre.djvu
  2. You need an account on the commons.
  3. Search for and save the category for later: Commons categories
  4. Use the Upload Wizard to upload to the commons.
  5. The Upload Wizard requires the following parameters:
  • Page 2 of the upload process
    1. The source URL specified as Internet Archive
    2. Specify the author: Ayres & Wade (Richmond, Va.)
    3. Specify the license by selecting: Published in the USA prior to 1923.
  • Page 3 of the upload process
    1. Specify a description for the book.
    2. Specify the year of publication: 1864?
    3. Specify the selected category.
  1. Click Finish.

I hope this helps. — Ineuw talk 20:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

ProofreadPage number/range limitation?[edit]

I'm trying to create Richard Nixon Presidential Daily Diary/1969/November with content <pages index="Richard Nixon's presidential daily calendar - 1969.djvu" from=1697 to=1849 /> and getting the Wikimedia error page. Is this a known problem? I wouldn't think 150 pages would be that bad, but maybe the high page numbers are doing something odd? Prosody (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

To be specific, it's a timeout. Prosody (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so it went through and this happened. What do? Prosody (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know too much about it but it appears we've exceeded the internal limits per page. Somewhere near the end of HTML code, we find:

NewPP limit report
Preprocessor node count: 1002402/1000000
Post-expand include size: 2048000/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 654154/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 2/500

I believe this means we have too many templates in play. See here for more info. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. I've split it up to accommodate that. Much obliged. Prosody (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Well the other option would have been to cut down on the number of "lazy" templates in use for their HTML counterparts. For example - embedding the {{Center}} template just to align a short phrase or chapter heading dozens of times within another even more complex template that can be called hundreds of times throughout a body of work can defeat the purpose and intent of wikicoding in the first place. Its easier to remove all chance of overkill in those cases by going with simple HTML tags & styling instead for simple formatting tasks. Of course, finding the balance between the two approaches is always the best practice. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
There are other advantages to replacing templates with html/css and I fully concur with GO3 on this. Overuse of templates hinders our ability to work with the other language subdomains effectively and removes formatting control from the editor/proofreader/typesetter/whatever you want to call yourself. Although this isn't a multilingual work, the general use of html/css is preferable in my opinion - broadly speaking, there are many places where it would be too complex or simply non-functional but centering text is not one of those. {{center}} also contains class="tiInherit" and places the divs on different lines causing padding of the centered text vertically, which isn't always desirable and anybody messing with the template will change your formatting. I have switched to always using <div style="text-align:center"> text </div>.--Doug.(talk contribs) 08:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Quite true - when we wikify a typical HTML div block through a template such as {{center}} that has them opening & closing on their own "lines", we wind up inserting paragraph tags (also a block) containing the input text without even realizing it thanks to the wikicoding. This makes the div's class dealing with indentation pretty much pointless and the div's style subject to the paragraph tag's defaults at the same time (thus, your messed up vertical padding). A block wrapping another block containing just a word or two is the typical example of overkill around here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Spurious Sidenote[edit]

IN : The_Statutes_at_Large_(Ruffhead)/Volume1/Magna_Carta around CAP I. There is a sidenoted that is rendering twice.

It should only be rendering once.

Can someone please explain where I've made a typo, or is this a knwon bug that needs to be flagged up?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

NOTABUG - This turned out to be a typo in the markup which meant a section got included twice :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Index:Southern Life in Southern Literature.djvu[edit]

Hi. I need help in fixing this djvu file. Two pages are missing, luckily there are two "free" pages soon after, as two other pages have been scanned twice.
What (I think) is needed to fix the problem is:

djvu page 340 -> to replace djvu page 342 (can be done as this page is repeated later)
djvu page 341 -> to replace djvu page 343 (can be done as this page is repeated later)
File:Southern_Life_in_Southern_Literature_text_page_322.jpg in commons to be inserted in djvu page 340
File:Southern_Life_in_Southern_Literature_text_page_323.jpg in commons to be inserted in djvu page 341

and upload of the update djvu. I hope I can the care of the rest. Thanks in advance.--Mpaa (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've created a new DjVu but I'm getting Wikimedia's "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem" error message. I'll try again later but if anyone else has better luck, go ahead and try yourself. Incidentally, the two new pages are noticeably different than the others (as well as larger, I didn't want to alter them too much at this stage) and have no OCR layer. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks a lot! After posting I finally decided to give a try with djvu processing myself. It was about time to learn … I also noticed that the 2 pages were much bigger compared to the rest of the file but I did not dare to do anything at my first trial. I was happy enough I could insert/delete the pages. I just saw you have beaten me by 15 min. Any way/purpose to delete an unneeded (mine) and definitely less reliable version from commons now?--Mpaa (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I think a Commons admin will need to do that. However, if it works, I'd leave it alone. I got an error message right at the end of the upload (around 99%) so I'm not entirely sure how successful it was. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
OK. BTW what did you do to get a smaller size? What I did was: 1. remove pages with djvm -d … 2. create djvu image for each page with c44 page-n.jpg, which generated page-n.djvu 3. insert pages back with djvm -i. But I ended up with 2Mb more than your file … --Mpaa (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The method I used was: 1) Split the main DjVu file into individual pages with DjVuToy, 2) Converted the Jpegs to DjVu with DjVuSolo, 3) Deleted and renamed pages in the split version manually, 4) Copied the pages from step two into the folder full of split pages, 5) Recombined the DjVu file with DjVuToy. I prefer GUI-based software but DjVuSolo is no longer supported and I found DjVuToy somewhere on the internet once (it seems OK but I can't really guarantee that it's safe to run); I don't even know much about the latter's origin although the website listed in its About window is here. However, my file actually appears to be slightly smaller than the original so maybe there was an error somewhere during the upload. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Floating image in center help needed[edit]

Of all the thousands of picture pages proofread, this is the first time I came across such a problem, and I am stumped. I am trying to position center image ON THIS PAGE, so that the text surrounds it. For some reason, I can't even position the image in the center when it's placed in a table. My thanks in advance. — Ineuw talk 07:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The documentation for {{Img float}} simply says "Text does not wrap around centre-aligned images." I don't recall seeing it successfully done in any wikimedia article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe it can be achieved in this case. I will give it a go. --Eliyak T·C 18:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
On second thought, it's not worth the trouble. The page will look very different with the wider line width after transclusion. I will just put all 3 images on a line. --Eliyak T·C 18:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Out of topic but I see the link posted (ON THIS PAGE) as problematic, while the page is proofread. Wonder why.--Mpaa (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)In spite of all my previous page refresh, CTRL-F5, etc. After saving it turned yellow …--Mpaa (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Because I accepted Eliyak's solution and the text was already proofread. It's no longer problematic. My reply and your comment were made at the same time. :-)— Ineuw talk 19:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
No, it was not that, there was a delay in the system in refreshing status. I checked just before editing. My saving probably triggered a refresh somewhere.--Mpaa (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Elyak. I learned something useful and important. I am referring to the image size preceded by the "x" (as in x225px) to control the length. I am taking advantage of this post to ask another, somewhat related question with the following subtitle.

When to enclose values in double quotes?[edit]

What's the best universal practice with parameter values of numbers or letters, as in width="300" or width=300, or section begin=ineuw, or section begin="ineuw"? So far there were no errors with or without quotations, but I am not sure if this is so in all situations. — Ineuw talk 19:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know (and that's not very far), it only matters if there are spaces, so section begin=james is fine but either section begin=james_johnson or section begin="james johnson". Somebody with more experience should comment though.--Doug.(talk contribs) 12:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. — Ineuw talk 17:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I beg to differ - though some standards allow for the ommission of quotes encasing the values of certain attributes, including "wikicode", they are almost always automatically added and present when inspecting the underlying source HTML being viewed in the end anyway. The W3 specs, as old as they may be in today's terms, still recommends using them even if only for "possible future backward compatibility" reasons (whatever that means). -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Table overflowing to next page[edit]

Could someone please take a look at these pages of Manual of the New Zealand Flora: page 150 and page 151. In the "final version" (Manual_of_the_New_Zealand_Flora/Leguminosæ) a part of the table is not on the right place.

Is there - by the way - a good introduction on these kind of "overflow"-problems, somewhere on a help page?

Dick Bos (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at Help:Page breaks#Tables across page breaks. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanx. I think I did it as described, but still the final edition doesn't show up right. Dick Bos (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. We need to amend that help page a little to deal with the nop issue. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I tried to change the help page. Please check it. And if anyone could explain what happens here, that might be interesting. I don't understand it. But apparently it works. - Dick Bos (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


I have a question about a work of Stith Thompson: Motif-Index of Folk-Literature, 2nd ed., 6 vols. There a two visible printings on HathiTrust, the first from 1955 to 1958 (missing vol. 2) and the second from 1966. Both have a copyright notice "All rights reserved" (valid?) and I dont have found any renewal entrys (Stanford, Rutgers, Copyright Office and the Google search of the Pennsylvania scans for Stith Thompson and Motif-Index). So I guess it is PD-US-no-renewal, but I dont knew if the second printing does effects the copyright of the first, so PD or not? --enomil (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not having researched it myself and therefore trusting your research regarding the non-renewal, you would be correct: PD-US-no-renewal. The later printing has no effect on the copyright of earlier printings, or even of the later printed edition, except that any material that wasn't in an earlier printing will generally have a separate copyright. In other words, if it's printed 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1966, 1973, and all printings are identical except for the printing data page (and maybe the title page, etc.) the copyright remains 1951 and if not renewed the work is PD even if you happen to have the 1973 scans - this requires knowing it's identical though - which isn't easy. Although mere printing dates may imply that the works are the same you can't necessarily count on it and the other way round, copyright dates for subsequent printings are often copyfraud, as in the above example claiming copyright 1973 when there is no new material. Bottom line, if your research is good, the work is PD.--Doug.(talk contribs) 16:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Help is asked for a sections problem of two consecutive PSM articles[edit]

The end and begin sections of THIS PAGE are properly defined but regardless, in the main namespace they overlap the two consecutive articles and I can't figure out what's wrong. If someone can take a look whenever it's possible, I would most appreciate it. — Ineuw talk 23:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think its you - it seems another ugrade of the goofreading page extension is causing this. I'm going to go look for other examples where one section ends and another begins on the same page to see if transclusion is broken there as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Pheew. Much thanks GOIII.— Ineuw talk 01:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Yup; something has changed in the coding alright. Previous examples based in similar situations are also broken now... see Haeckel's Moners for example. -- George Orwell III (talk)
OK. Here is a clue. I worked on both articles earlier todayreplacing poor images taken when I knew even less. I checked other articles with sections and they were fine. It seems that when the page is saved, it does that. I will test another.— Ineuw talk 01:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Every edited page changes the section.— Ineuw talk 01:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed - "touching" a page or pages that where previously OK when it came to splitting a page for partial transclusion no longer behave the way they did prior to today's upgrade. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'm seeing pages that haven't been "touched" for weeks or months have their sectionalized transclusion portion break as well. I'd give this some time to see if there is any caching issue causing a lag in proper display or something. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all your efforts. I am no longer concerned. This is normal for a new release which I forgot about, having seen it only on another wiki. We usually get a notice about it in the Scriptorium. So there will be a number of reports about the problems caused by the update. :-)— Ineuw talk 03:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Broken preference in gadgets: Show header and footer fields[edit]

This preference in the gadgets is also broken: Show header and footer fields when editing in the Page namespace won't show.— Ineuw talk 01:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

More prison-rape-upgrade antics.
Disable the gadget in your preferences then go to your editing tab and enable the line pertaining to show headers in Page: namespace etc. I guess the gadget is being phased out for a more permanent user option in the preferences/editing tab -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
What you're basically saying is that I have to operate it manually. Am I correct? :-D — Ineuw talk 02:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
No, the new option in your editing tab of your preferences needs to be checked off to mimic what the gadget did before today's upgrade. Disabling the gadget is only a precaution to avoid conflicts with the new option. I could be wrong but that's what I did and headers/footers display automatically in edit mode in the Page: namespace as they did before when enabling the gadget. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Got it. Missed the option in Edit preferences when I first looked. Thanks.— Ineuw talk 02:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
To note I lodged a bugzilla for this to default to ON, and this has now been done. From my looking through bugzilla requests, Zaran and Tpt requested that the option be moved into the main preferences from being a gadget, as loading as a gadget through the ResourceLoader functionality was occasionally problematic. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Early modern and/or Modern cat[edit]

Case in point, if you have a poem that was published first in the late 1800's (satisfying the "Early modern poetry" Category), and then re-issued after the turn of the century ("Modern"?) in a collection, what category/ies would you use for my case-in-point? Would/could you use two cats? Would it depend on whether the poem was reissued in a periodical or merely republished in a collection? What are the variables at play? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, well my first question is how we came up with these demarcations (1631-1899). I would think the Early Modern Period would start at the end of the Late Middle Ages and end around 1800 (see w:Early modern period). The period described seems to start in the middle of the Early Modern period and runs almost until Contemporary times. We have crammed Category:Renaissance works in between the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period and given it a range of 1421-1631. This appears to have made us push the Early Moderns to the right far beyond reason. Another problem of doing this is that the time of the Renaissance varies greatly by region and the whole thing is a Europe specific event, really continental Europe. If we want to use the Renaissance simply because English is a European language then why wouldn't we set the Renaissance as beginning in 1558 or at the earliest 1485? What historical or logical basis do we have for either 1421 (far too early for the Renaissance in England) or 1631 (during the middle of the Thirty Years' War but of no particular consequence in England that I can tell)?
As to the general question of categorization, I would categorize individual poems according to their period and collections I would probably put under all included periods and/or under Category:Collections of poetry.--Doug.(talk contribs) 15:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Your Hmm-ing, etc., made me think we might look to the LoCC for some direction... which would be Adam's realm... I may knock on his door in a bit. Only at the computer but scarcely today... Taking all into consideration... Thanks Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. I also noted after my comment above that we have used a hard A.D. 600 for the break between the "Ancient" era and the "Medieval" era. I wonder too, where we are deriving this date. It looks like the template was created in 2006 but the 1421 date was added by inductiveload this past January(all inductiveload did was change a date by one year to eliminate a conflict).--Doug.(talk contribs) 19:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems that a good idea would be to relax the dates for the era scheme and make sure to add an additional category to each work for the year or decade (or even century for uncertain works) in which the work was originally published. I would even think that two era categories could be appropriate for some borderline works. --Eliyak T·C 21:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the Library of Congress Classification system: it does not have a strict era-dating system. If you look at English Literature (PR, which is distinct from things like American Literature, PS, etc.) then the eras listed are "Anglo-Saxon" (pre-1066), "Medieval" (1066-1500) and "Modern" (post-1500). Literature (General), PN, doesn't give many dates but is still uses a similar Ancient/Medieval/Modern system (the only date is 1500 as the start of the Modern era, with the Renaissance as 1500-1700 under the Modern era). Most of the other set periods are by century or ranges of years relevant to the subject. This might be hard to really set in stone. Eras are pretty arbitrary concepts anyway and will probably vary between person and place. However, we need hard numbers for computational functions (for example, the automatic categorisation of authors) and for consistency across a project of disparate vounteers. Which means we need "official" eras by year, even if they are arbitrary points. As a Wikimedia project, we can probably decide on this by consensus, although changing it may mean altering some templates and recategorising a lot of pages by hand.
Regarding the initial point: I would categorise individual works by first publication. I would also categorise the collection itself (the base page) by its publication, rather than that of its contents; using the date that copy was printed if it isn't from a first edition. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that argues for keeping them the way they are though (and I'm not sure you intended it to) as 1) the cats are automagically applied to works as well as authors based on the date so only those where the cat is added directly would have to be fixed the rest would simply recategorize on their own and 2) the current system is not in line with any useful system. Picking dates at random for the Renaissance is not helpful but calling a work written in 1899 "Early Modern" is simply wrong.--Doug.(talk contribs) 22:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm just saying we need precise years for the start and end of eras, even if those eras don't have precise start and end points. As a Wikimedia project, we should choose those years by discussion and consensus. I think I will start one in the main section. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
See Wikisource:Scriptorium#Selecting new eras. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a quick way of seeing which proofread pages I am entitled to validate?[edit]

I am an irregular editor of Volume 33 of the US Statutes at Large. There are hundreds of pages in two volumes neatly displayed on the index pages, and I would love to be able to mouseover a yellow proofread page to discover that it was, say, George Orwell III who proofread it, not me - so entitling me to validate it. At present, I rather clunkily open the page and click on history (it loads more quickly than editing) to check if I'm the last editor or not. Is there a quicker way to check which pages I should be looking at, or if not, would it be easy to implement? Thanks CharlesSpencer (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

We should be able to pull the information from the API, though I would have to think through the query. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Mr. B. Look forward to it! CharlesSpencer (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Suddenly occurs to me that my initial question suggests that the name of the previous editor should be displayed. There is no need at all to display the name of the last editor (unless that would be the easiest way to code it) - George's name got in there only because he's another sometime editor of Volume 33! I am entirely agnostic as to how the result should be displayed, and defer to more experienced users - maybe a mouseover message giving the existing path information in green instead of the default black could work, since it would not deprive the user of any existing info. CharlesSpencer (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Some of the query is here, however, my brain is too knackered to get past that query. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

A question from a noob[edit]

Hi, I think there are many errors here, what can I do for resolve the problems?--Italo da b (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you'll need to ask this question on the Italian Wikisource. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Table formating[edit]


I've tried various approaches to try and get this to format with rowspans, and it still wont' format correctly.

Can someone please tell me WHY it seems to be impossible to set up rowspans with templates, please? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem. What are you trying to achieve that isn't working? --Eliyak T·C 01:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Three page reference includes table[edit]

This reference Page:A Study of Mexico.djvu/188, Page:A Study of Mexico.djvu/189 and Page:A Study of Mexico.djvu/190 spans three pages. The main namespace problem begins with page two, where the reference indent of table row #9 is lost. Is there a way to correct this? IneuwPublic (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The only way to get both tables to follow one set of widths is if they were properly split the usual way with the starts and ends falling into the noinclude sections. Being a ref follow case and not the usual table headache, there is no way to get that to work (apparently) even with additional noinclude tags being used to mimic the same premise.
I had to guesstimate and set a total with size for both tables to get them to display somewhat the same for Layout 1. Of course the other Layouts won't be so pretty (Dynamic Layouts never liked fix table widths, in short) -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I have cheated in the past by putting an entire table on one page (in cases where it was spread horizontally over two pages). When I did that, I left {{ambox}} messages in the noinclude sections of all the effected pages to make it clear what I had done. It isn't perfect from a Pagespace point of view but it worked in the mainspace. You could try something similar. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

To my esteemed colleagues, thanks for the solution. Have a nice weekend. IneuwPublic (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Deprecated use of the gap template uncovered by the thought police![edit]

George_Orwell_III has kindly modified one of my templates which used the gap template in a deprecated way... only in my innocence, that's the only way I've ever used gap! Is there any automated way to replace every instance of gap on pages I have edited with the correct CSS formatting code, before the thought police get me? (thanks George - I'd never have spotted it without you!) CharlesSpencer (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Who, what, whe...? Which template did I break now? :( George Orwell III (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Not answering the above, but speaking about gap … why is {{gap}} deprecated for indentation and at the same time suggested for indentation in Help:Editing_poetry#Line indentation and linebreaks?--Mpaa (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Poetry is a different matter. The use of the poem tag almost begs for something like gap to offset lines. I don't think the DNB Project has to deal with poems; only poets. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't really see why it is different to indent prose or poems. Both cases are a just a sequence of letters … And in the help page above, gap is suggested even without the poem tag. Also the reference to DNB is obscure.--Mpaa (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm with you but we weren't here in the early days when the poem tag was invented and applied. Its safe to say most folks since those early days do use the poem for poetry more often than not. Now I know every other application for indentation uses the styling paramater text-indent:xx to achieve indentation,, but that was not the way found to be best here when it comes to poetry is all. The DNB is a compilation of biographies not poetry so its recommended that gap be avoided and the standard text-indent be used is all. The same holds true for most other non-poetical works. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
This thread caught my attention in Recent changes... I almost had to turn my music down to concentrate on what you all were talking about and perhaps prepare for the worst... Do let me know (please) if anything with the {{gap}} template changes; {{nop}} issues with poetry has been irritating enough! :P Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet another copyright question[edit]

I'm considering typing in Baden-Powell's Scouting for Boys (ISBN 0 85165 247 6) which was originally published in 1932. As more than 70 years have passed since then it seems that no copyright problems should occur. However, the copy I'm holding has had an introduction added by the author, written in 1963; also, my copy is the thirty-fifth edition, printed in 1991. Now I'm confused as to which date applies here? If anyone could help me be certain that copyright issues won't arise I'll start working; otherwise I'll simply settle for enjoying the reading experience. Thanks in advance, --Medic (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The book was first published in 1932, and the author died in 1941. Due to those aspects, the work is still in copyright in the United States until 2027, so we cannot host the work. The 1963 introduction by another author would have a separate copyright that would require its own research. Fun, eh? — billinghurst sDrewth 07:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A shame. However, just to be certain that I understand correctly: The book doesn't enter into public domain until 86 years after the author's death - and subsequent re-prints are of no consequence with regards to copyright. Correct? --Medic (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Not so simple. We basically work off US copyright restrictions alone, rather than the pairing (home country and US) that is done at Commons, and more information is available at Cornell copyright. For this work, for that period, for UK-only publications where the author died after 1938 the work is under copyright from 95 years of the original publication.— billinghurst sDrewth 15:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for your replies - it's been most helpful. --Medic (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Book scan not showing[edit]

The book scans are not showing up for side y side editing. What do I do? Daytrivia (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Which book? — Ineuw talk 23:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks much Ineuw. Ihad a problem with any book but seems to be better today. Perhaps my connection is too slow. Daytrivia (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Processing "New Texts"[edit]

Would someone be kind enough to tell me what processes books go through after they are placed in the "New Text" area? What happens to each of them? Are they again proofed? Are they placed back on wikisource? AdamBMorgan and I have worked on several projects and one that I saw him place in the new text area was Southern Historical Society Papers volume I. The original is still in the same place before placing a copy in the new text area. So, what processes (all steps) do the new works go through — step-by-step, each and every step? I have often wondered but never asked here. I thank one and all who do help in answering this question. Have a wonderful life everyone, —William Maury Morris II Talk 06:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

New texts is a place that announces the work on a list on the front page, nothing more. The proofread status of a work is indicated by the setting of the Index: page status, which places a work into the respective categories of Category:Index. We have some other lists around the place where people can add works if they are wanting further proofreading to be undertaken. Nothing systematic, though I do refer to those lists when we have validation month in November. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Billinghurst, I thank you for the answer shown above. Beeswaxcandle, I also thank you for your answer on "no text". I did not know and do not believe a person should just write "thank you" to an answer as this area is to valuable to waste space. When all is archived we would not want to encounter a mass of nothing but "thank you" notes or does that really matter? I do not know and thus the question. —William Maury Morris II Talk 18:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

To anyone who is willing to teach. The book,, has just been totally verified but there were and are other mistakes including a simple spelling mistake which all of us can make. I am wondering though about this. When a book is fully verified and goes to "New Texts", as mentioned above, it actually goes nowhere else. So, is it okay to correct it as it remains in the same area and has been through "New Texts"? I am trying to learn some details here with questions I have never asked before now. I am highly reluctant to correct another person's work but yet I invite one and all to correct any work I edit because I want the book to be correct as possible regardless of what stage it is in. —William Maury Morris II Talk 18:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
If there is an error, it can be corrected at any time by anyone (unless it is an error in the original, of course, in which case {{SIC}} should be used). "New Texts" just advertises new texts as they are added to the library, it isn't technically a special mark of quality. (NB: I keep forgetting to add texts to "New Texts" or I would have added more SHSP articles as I transcluded them.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"No Text" pages[edit]

Is there a way to eliminate the process of clicking on "No Text" pages where there is no text? I ask this only because it really messes up the "watchlist" that so many of us use. When there are volumes, there are may pages of "no text" at the beginning and end. I feel a tad guilty of filling up the "watchlist" with "no text", "no text, no text" but at the same time I like to know where these are and eliminate them asap. I believe I have seen marks like _ _ on some pages and I don't recall others placing a lot of "no text" pages on the watchlist where those underscores are colored grey. I do not want to annoy others by placing "no text" on the watchlist — that is what I am trying to avoid. I thank whomever may answer. —William Maury Morris II Talk 08:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

While these do turn up on Special:RecentChanges, it's fine. They need to be marked as "no text" so that the various tools that look for missed pages will pick them up as "OK", and they have to be done manually as a bot can't tell if a page is genuinely blank or if the OCR was missed. wrt to the various hyphens and dashes used in the page lists in the Index namespace, this is more about page numbering. If hyphen/dash has been used it means that there is no print page number (as opposed to the djvu/pdf page number). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

creation of Smithson will[edit]

could someone please create the side by side pages, for James Smithson's will? i've linked to the commons images at Author:James Smithson. Slowking4 (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Click the "scan index" after each wikilink. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, having looked at this again, the draft will be better as a DjVu file. I'll create one later today and replace the second scan index. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, now I'm done. The original scans were not of the best quality but the DjVu file appears to be serviceable. All the links are correct and ready to go now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Online Training for Wikisource[edit]

My name is Scott Robarge Another8 founder and talent consultant. Does Wikisource offer any online training on how companies can use the open source architecture?

No. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
If you are interested in the MediaWiki software, the site for that is --Eliyak T·C 21:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


Here is the article of Armenian Ex-president Levon Ter-Petrossyan, published in washingtonpost.

Do this article belong to public domain, or not? Thanks in advance HAKmasnakic (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It belongs to the Washington Post. :) — Ineuw talk 23:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Kindly let us know list of those gentlemen who contributed by studying various Hindu Texts of ancient culture of India[edit]


We are looking for references on people who worked on Hindu scriptures; the contributions that have come from Christian scholars


Regards unsigned comment by (talk) .

I am uncertain that any of us are able to provide that sort of assistance. If there are specific works that have been added to English Wikisource, if you click on the history of the works you will see who contributed them to the site. If you are looking for Hindu texts, then the multilanguage Wikisource may be a better place to start, and go to the Hindi section. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Fonts for Wikisource Text[edit]

Is there any way that we can change any lettering by selecting a different font? For example, if I wanted the first letter in Old English, or any other font, is there a way to do that in the text itself so it won't just "appear" to be a changed font on my machine but rather really will change the font—as one would do in Microsoft Word—but yet within wikisource text. There are so grand wizards here and "anti-eyestrain" InductiveLoad comes to mind as definately one of them. Have a grand day everyone and be happy in your work. wink --Maury (—William Maury Morris II Talk 12:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There are a few font options with the {{lang}} template (which is normally used to mark a section of text with the correct language code, if not English). These are:
Perizia: {{lang|font=Perizia|text=Add text here}}
Rufscript: {{lang|font=Rufscript|text=Add text here}}
Ubuntu: {{lang|font=Ubuntu|text=Add text here}}
I don't see much difference in them. In theory Old English script should be rendered by the {{blackletter}} template but this does not work (at least not for me). I have requested a new webfont, bugzilla:36666, to which I need to respond (my recent ISP problems got in the way). If/when we get that it will work through the lang template and, if there are no objections, I'll probably change blackletter to match. I should also point out TeX; I've tried it and it works but I don't think it works very well for our needs. Nevertheless, it can do (<math>\mathfrak{This}</math>). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Adam! Perhaps it's my imagination but you always seem to be ahead of everyone on innovations — and most certainly with helping me. I love that blackletter font and will give it a try later. Thanks again! Most respectfully, William Maury Morris II Talk 19:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
To get {{blackletter}} to work for Old English or the Fraktur fonts, you need to have the fonts already on your computer. And then put the following on your "css" page for the skin you use [e.g. User:Beeswaxcandle/monobook.css]
.Fraktur {
   font-family: 'Cloister Black', 'Linotext', 'Old English Text MT', 'Blackmoor LET', serif;
   font-size: 110%;

Replace the font names I've used with whichever fonts you have installed. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to display a multi-character sub heading in categories?[edit]

Created a new Category:New publications announced in Popular Science Monthly where the article names are all the same. So, I would like to show the publication year, like 1889 ... 1990 etc., as applicable, as opposed to just the no. 1. Is this possible? — Ineuw talk 23:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S: This help question is the continuation of this Scriptorium post

If this is not possible, perhaps should move the list to a portal where the link would indicate the Month and year of the title and abandon categorizing? Ideas would be most welcome. — Ineuw talk 23:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Creating a template to be used with a specific book[edit]

Is there any convention for naming templates that are likely to be useful only for one or two books? For instance, I'm thinking of making a template to use for quotations in a book of quotations, so entries would be easier to make and the formatting would be easier to tweak. It'd be nice to have something short but unlikely to clash with something else... - Furrykef (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest something like {{ABCquote}}, where ABC are the initials of the title. (This format has been used in a few cases I am aware of.) 3 or 4 characters should be enough to avoid collisions. Also, please add the template to Category:Specific article templates (which should probably be renamed to Category:Specific work templates or something). --Eliyak T·C 22:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Cannot properly join two pages[edit]

At the end of this article, two pages are skipped in the <page code but there is still a gap in the text. THIS and THIS are the two pages to be skipped in the Page ns. Can someone please help? Thanks.— Ineuw talk 08:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed (I hope). You should probably take a second look at the latest parameters for the <pages> command. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction which looks great, and for the link to the &ltpages> parameters. — Ineuw talk 08:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Centering stanzas[edit]

Any ideas about how to better center the stanzas of this poem? The italicized portions of the poem are inset from the rest of the poem in the original, but I can't seem to come up with a better way of making that distinction other than this way; however, in the Main, it doesn't render well at all. I suppose I could individually block-center each stanza for poems like this (not desired) or manually 'shift' the italicized stanzas over using gaps... There is also the issue of an inset italicized stanza being 'broken' between two pages... Suggestions welcomed. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you meant by "edit this way" but I gave it a shot regardless. IMHO, there were too many "blocks" to begin with so I just made it one block-start & one block-end spanned over 3 pages then gapped over the italicized stanzas, dropping another block by making each line italicized instead.
You need to keep in mind that these blocks are really just an HTML table with one column and one row each. If the longest line of one block is not exactly the same width of the longest lines in the other blocks, you will get differing center lines (i.e. each table will have different widths, skewing the centering from one to the next and so on). That's why one start and end is always better than multiple block calls throughout a piece. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. That does work well for inset blocks of text; there is also the case where lines of italicized text are longer in length than the other stanzas. I suppose in those cases, I could use {{shift left}}—almost the opposite effect of a gap. [I think what I meant by "edit this way" was how it was rendered when I asked for help. I did not like the formatting I used with the multiple blocks.] Thank you also for the HTML explanation. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Can any American help?[edit]

Hello, I am looking for an online version of Olaf Bull's Digte og noveller for proofreading on Norwegian Wikisource. However, I don't seem to be able to find one. I do wonder if this could be partially due to the fact that I am not in the US, and that the text would've been available for download if I had a US IP address. I would therefore like to know if any person who geographically is in the US could go to the following URLs to see if the book can be downloaded, and upload the file to Commons.

  • Google Books
  • HathiTrust (According to the text, this is the same version as the above, but from a different source.

From a copyright perspective, there shouldn't be any issue uploading the book to Commons, as it was published in 1916 (PD-US) and Bull died in 1933 (PD-old-75). From experience, I do know that several digitisers of books tend to be more strict than they need to, so I understand if these texts are not available to be downloaded at all. V85 (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Google shows "no preview available" meaning that they intend, or are already selling the book of 96 pages. Therefore, it will probablly be found on for purchase. Google sells through it's own eBooks but they also sell on
Hathitrust has the book but only, I believe, a membership. I do not think you are missing anything in this situation by not being an American. Kind regards, —William Maury Morris II Talk 14:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Here is the book you want both New and used

Kindest regards, An American through many generations, —William Maury Morris II Talk 14:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the help! Although the result, through no fault of yours, wasn't quite what I was hoping for. V85 (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems that a PDF is available from the HathiTrust link, but only to members of the partnering institutions, which include a number of major American universities. Anyone? Prosody (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Plan B; Looks like you can down load the pages one at at time from HathiTrust without membership, while the whole book at once would be best. This can be a plan B. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't seem that way. I can only enter something called "search only view", it doesn't actually let me see any pages. (And, for being called "search view", I find it puzzling that I can't really type anything in the "search" box.) V85 (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure? From THIS link, I find on the right-hand side, 'Get this book', with the link for partners (requires login)and the link to download 1 page at a time (free). -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
That site will allow only one page to be downloaded at a time. The entire .PDF file can only be downloaded by a "member" (try it and you will see.) AdamBMorgan had the same problem when getting SHSP v.14 Kind regards, —William Maury Morris II Talk 22:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I find the 'Get this book' header on the left, and there is only one link there: 'Find this book in a library', which brings me to the Worldcat site (which seems to list US univerities that have the book. V85 (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Categorizing the state of a new work[edit]

I'm trying to find out how to categorize a work to be in need of proof-reading. It was marked with the {{incomplete}} tag as it had no contents. I've now loaded a djvu and am in the middle of populating the text (3 out of 15 chapters) of (Darwinism (Wallace). So it's still incomplete but someone wants to start proofreading. Adding it to category [Wikisource texts needing proofreading] doesn't have seem to have any effect. I can't find any guidance in the Help section (it only talks about page status). I removed the incomple tag though I don't think that's justified. Guidance please. Chris55 (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Categorisation for works in the Index/Page: ns is determined by the status given to the work there (drop down box in edit mode). All fall under Category:Index pages. I would be leaving the {{incomplete}} tag in place on the main page of the work until the work is proofread once and transcluded. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. Incidentally, though I'm tidying the pages as I go (headers, refs etc.) I'm marking them not proof-read as I'm generally not reading every word, though the text comes from Gutenberg. Am I being too harsh on myself? Chris55 (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Everyone has their own approach. I generally tidy, then come back through and proof read. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Validating & Running Headers[edit]

I have tried using "HELP" to find a page on validating. I have searched for validate, and validating and that did not work. So, now I am here. I want to know the specifics of validating. Editors validate, apparently, in different ways. They care about, apparently, different things. Some seem to not care about validating with italics when the book shows italics. Fine with me I just want to know which is correct, if any. Some editors and by editors I include administrators, seem not to care how a work is validated -- as the book shows or different. Some editors validate pages but there are no running headers or page numbers. This last one frets me because when validating and I see the page already colored green (for validating). I get confused if the page is validated (green) and yet has no running headers nor page numbers. Do these things matter or not? Either of these ways are fine with me I just want to learn and follow the rules. I will state that although it appears a lot easier to totally and leave out running headers and page numbers, or as any book shows them, that it seems proper to me to include running headers and include the page numbers for correct validating. Is not what the colored circles for -- to alert us which are validated and which are not? Yes, of course, but is it correct for me, or you, or anyone else to validate page after page after page and not include adding the running headers? Some people here on WS are very talented and very much perfectionists while others are not so naturally we are going to encounter differences and all is well on that. We should expect it. I do not do as well as many I have seen do works so I do what I think I can do and I do a lot as many others do. I just want to know the rules about validating so that I can at least excel in some areas. In short, is it correct or not to validate many pages (green) that do not show running headers + page numbers? I don't think so but I ask because I want to know. I have been validating the (PSM) volumes and I want to know exactly what is and is not correct. I thank all who read and answer this perplexity. William Maury Morris II (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You should not be confused. Pages should NOT have been proofread without running headers, and certainly not validated. That's why I asked User:Mpaa to provide me with a list of proofread (and validated) pages without running headers of PSM to correct my earlier mistakes. And, this is where you came in and took some of the list off my hands, and for which I am thankful. Essentially, validating is another set of eyes doing the same proofreading and catching oversights by the first proofreader. I don't think that special instructions are needed for the concept of two sets of eyes being better than one.
As the party who bears the guilt for the missing running headers in PSM, I explained earlier that in the beginning, I was proofreading under several misconceptions about the requirements. First, I assumed that the main namespace was the most important result, and saw no reason for the running headers. Because of this, and the initial lack of tools, like user defined toolbar macros and keyboard macros like AutoHotkey, I found retyping of the running headers to be very tedious and distracting. Furthermore, I was positive that theses headers could automatically be created by some programming. — Ineuw talk 07:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Ineuw, my questions are not about you. As you say, you told me about your situation so I do know about it and quite frankly, I have enjoyed working on your many pages. Again, my question has -nothing- to do with you. I have been assisting you in a completion of PSM pages. Perhaps I should be more specific and state that my question is about a lady editor who validates but does not touch running headers and page numbers even when they do not show on her validated work. It is not about you. I do as you do so I am not in the least confused with what you are now writing about. You are a professionalist. You do excellent work. It is unusual to find any mistakes you might make. I know your situation and I have been enjoying reading over your hundreds of PSM pages. Everything in a project is a step-by-step process -- that is what you (and now I) have been doing in order to reach a completion of a volume. Respectfully, William Maury Morris II (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
PS: There is no "guilt" for or by any person. Far from it with all that you have done on the PSM volumes!!! We all here are learning. There are only corrections needed or not needed. William Maury Morris II (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

ie: Two different Validations. Please look at both. One of many erroneous validations that I keep encountering on PSM volumes scattered here and there over time. The first is a validation that should not be a validation. The form of validating with no running headers of pages and/or no page numbers needs to stop, IMHO. It makes it more difficult to validate properly with running headers and pages numbered. /// William Maury Morris II (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Brought here from my talk page a decisive answer. William Maury Morris II (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Running headers should not be added where there are none, in The Southern Literary Messenger this is not needed for front matter (titles, credits, copyright etc), images and where Preface or first pages of chapters are. In other documents this also includes end matter (bibliography, index etc)--kathleen wright5 (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
kathleen wright5, this issue is about the PSM volumes and your editing of pages that have no running header or page number but yet the scanned pages show them. I believe I understand the point that RH should not be added where there are none -- but then those pages should not keep being validated by you in such a case, or should they? Now, the many volumes have already been edited. Some show no running header nor page numbers as you can read above in statements. So, after reading Ineuw's statements, what should be done? He has done the complex portions throughout those PSM volumes. Those running headers and page numbers should be added by someone at some point shouldn't they? It seems so to me and I have agreed to assist Ineuw (and plan to in all) with those PSM volumes. I do not know who is supposed to do what but I do know that there should be running headers and page numbers--and certainly before you *validate* pages that have nothing where RH and page #s show on the scanned image pages. Does this make sense or am I wrong in all of this? If I am making mistakes by helping to add running headers and page numbers I want to know for positive. If you should not *validate* as you have been doing I want to know for positive so that your work and my work will not clash since we do these things differently. I mean no bad feeling towards you, I am just looking at the many volumes of the PSM (almost 100 !) and I would like for the both of us to make sure we are doing what we are supposed to be doing or otherwise it will be a huge mess oo hundreds of pages in about 100 PSM volumes. It is the work completed that I am concerned about. It makes no difference to me who does that work just as long as it is completed and correct. I have kept my word with Ineuw but I plan to continue helping him. His work is outstanding and detailed, a far harder task on every page you and I come along and look over. Kindest regards, William Maury Morris II (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

WMM2, please stop being so hard on yourself and others. The concept of open and endless editing of the Wiki culture nullifies this issue. I've read User:Kathleen.wright5's post on your talk page and her reasons are just as valid as my reasons for omitting periods (.) from main namespace titles. (Both resulted in a minor firestorm of sorts.) If you feel like adding the running headers, do so, if not, that's also OK because someone else (in this case myself) will add it. FYI, these pages will be further modified when checked for applying the new font templates {{sf85}}, paragraph spacing and anchors linking the text to the index entries at the end of each volume.— Ineuw talk 18:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, will comply. William Maury Morris II (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a PDF file editor[edit]

Does anyone know of a freeware to edit a .pdf file? I need to remove the first page of a .pdf file to align the page numbers to the image numbers. Don't have (nor want to have) the Adobe PDF software suite. I use PDF Creator, and Sumatra or Irfanview to view, but I don't think I can edit/remove pages. — Ineuw talk 12:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried looking at the Irfanview plug-ins? I've not used it, but there is one (IMPDF) that allows one to write .pdf files and another (POSTSCRIPT) that will read them. See [5] for the full list. I understand that OpenOffice will also allow editing of a .pdf (again I've not used it). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I use PDF Split & Merge (pdfsam) to reorder pdfs, remove pages, rotate pages etc. [6]. --Eliyak T·C 15:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all three suggestions. I tried them all only to find that the Google donated The Popular science monthly vol 75.pdf from IA is locked for edit and also blocks image copy in the browser. So, using the Sumatra .pdf reader and full screen size (F11), I got some decent photos. This process was greatly helped by the fact that the younger generation of my family got sick and tired of my 17" CRT and last Friday they surprised me with a 22" LCD flat screen monitor. Nice kids, nice screen. — Ineuw talk 20:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the local .PDF with the Google disclaimer page trimmed because I thought you folks already copied it on its way to IA's .DjVu conversion. I can restore it helps. Next time just ask me if you need something like that done to a .PDF. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Everything is fine as far as Wikisource goes. I was experimenting to learn how to edit .PDf files. I am just not having luck with Google's version from AI. I remember the local copy you created, I downloaded it and then uploaded it back to AI. But, I am digressing. :-)
I've gone down this same road already - looking for the same capability, deleting the Google disclaimer page, but for a different reason (i.e. disclaimer page is always a different resolution & size than the body of pages that follow and since some conversions like to base their settings by the 1st page's parameters, it throws off the best possible outcome for the pages that really matter [just like the Digitized by Google watermark can]).

In my experience (and within my limited level of skills), you won't find many programs that easily and freely let you change or override a document's security settings to allow you to delete pages specifically, never mind make any changes to the .PDF at all, other than Adobe products themselves. The best that I could find were programs that let you re-order pages, moving the disclaimer to the end (but only for viewing purposes; not structure itself), or save it as another PDF with a different page range (page 2 to end page for example) - which didn't always mirror the quality of the original. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help with the image locking part, but I supplement PDFSAM with another program called PDFill, which is freeware that allows you to do a lot of editing of PDFs. It might allow you to get around the PDF lock, or it might not, but it's a handy program in many situations.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Zhaladshar, thanks for recommending the software. It's the neatest of the one's I tried, even if it doesn't unlock the document. :) — Ineuw talk 00:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

DB error[edit]

I imagine this will get picked up anyway but after a number of edits I'm getting the following error message from Page:A Wayfarer in China.djvu . I assume it's some kind of disk allocation problem.

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

   (SQL query hidden)

from within function "SqlBagOStuff::set". Database returned error "1114: The table 'pc219' is full (". Chris55 (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Index:History of southeast Missouri.djvu[edit]

There seems to be a mistake in the file. Pages 22-23 are repeated in 24-25. Could someone possibly fix this for me? - Lucyrocks=) (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That version seems to have other issues even if those 2 pages were deleted (page no. 3 is missing at position 70 for example). I found another version that was complete on I probably should have uploaded it over the existing version but I wanted to be sure that the new version had all the pages, etc.
The new file on Commons is File:History of Southeast Missouri 1912 Volume 1.djvu and the Index has been re-created with the few pages already created.
Somebody with access should delete the old file File:History of southeast Missouri.djvu citing duplicate/missing pages as the reason. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ref follow issue[edit]

I think I did a ref follow correctly on two pages (43 & 44), but there is the additional ref placement problem (I think it's a problem) where the reference notation (i, 1, ii, iii, etc.) throws things out of order, and the reference doesn't fully transclude in the Main (the remainder of the reference flows over onto the subsequent poem's Mainspace page). Thanks, AKA Londonjackbooks 00:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the transclusion problem is the placement of the follow note on the second page. You've got in the second section. Try moving it up into the first section. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Bingo! Didn't think about that, thanks! AKA Londonjackbooks 00:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Art search engine?[edit]

Is there such a thing as a search engine for works of art that will tell date of composition, and where the piece is located? For example, if I type a Google search for "The Chateau at Busagny", all I get are retailers for reproductions of that painting. Instead, I'm looking for a way to easily find the history and location of a work of art.

I would look at Commons: for copies, and Wikipedia: for articles. It wouldn't be something that this community would normally tackle. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

page scans black[edit]

Any idea why the pages scans here[7] are black?Daytrivia (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's happening randomly to all of us. I've taken to forcing a scan resolution which seems to fix it. Have a try now. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks much. I'll keep what you did as a future fix if needed. Thanks again. Daytrivia (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Stats on index files[edit]

I'm trying to get a handle on progress with transcribing using index files - which ones are incomplete, need proofreading, verification etc. There is Special:IndexPages which is very visual but not useful for identifying candidates for work. The overall statistics are not detailed enough for my purposes. Is there any way of getting at this information? It seems that categories are no longer in use for this type of identification but I can't find the successor. Chris55 (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Categories are indeed used. Try the subcategories of Category:Index. The categories are automatically assigned by the Progress field of Indices. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Would you like me to update User:Hesperian/Indices? Hesperian 10:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Hesperian, that was very much more what I was looking for. I see that we now have about double the number of index pages, which is good news for the year. Unfortunately 70% of the current pages come in the "Not proofread" category and there is no difference between nothing in the page space and 99.9% proofread. I presume you have a script that can be run to produce a new table? Chris55 (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes; running it now.... Hesperian 00:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Done. Hesperian 00:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
That's great. Do you know why your list shows 3,977 entries whereas Special:IndexPages shows 5,139? Chris55 (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I omit index pages that don't correspond to a djvu or pdf file, and (probably more pertinently) I omit index pages that are utterly finished (i.e. 100% "validated" or "without text". Hesperian 11:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I can see why you might omit completed tasks, but it makes the list less useful for tracking progress. There are also over 300 indexes in other formats (jpg, png etc.) and they also need to be tracked. Often these are harder to track because the index names don't include the normal file extension. Chris55 (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll re-run with completed tasks included, but I suspect you'll find, as I did, that these are unhelpful. Unfortunately my humble script relies heavily on assumptions that are not met by indices over multiple files. Hesperian 11:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Done. Hesperian 00:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Folger Shakespeare Library needs help help uploading their collection images[edit]

Hi everyone. The Folger Shakespeare Library wants to upload their collection of images, many (or most) which are documents. See the images here. If you are able to do so, please get in touch with User:Kaldari. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Align left the center part of a running header?[edit]

Hi wikisorcerers,

Is it possible to align left the chapter titles (here illustrations titles) using the running header template? Here is the page I’m working on. Thanks for your help! --Zyephyrus (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If you place the text in the left section of the rh, this would left align the text, but without an indent:
{{rh|1. Effect of monthly 'distribution' of precipitation on thickness of rings of growth; Prescott, Arizona||19}}
Thus, it's best to use a table, which is infinitely adjustable:
{|align="center" {{ts|lh12|bc}}
|{{ts|ar}}| 1.
| Effect of monthly "distribution" of precipitation on thickness of rings of growth; Prescott, Arizona
|{{ts|ar}}| 19

Ineuw talk 20:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, there's {{Dotted TOC page listing}}. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Ignoring the stuff below, I agree that this is the template appropriate to Zyephyrus's situation. In this case, the first line would be:
{{dotted TOC page listing
| 1. 
| Effect of monthly "distribution" of precipitation on thickness of rings of growth; Prescott, Arizona
| 19
Which produces:
Effect of monthly "distribution" of precipitation on thickness of rings of growth; Prescott, Arizona
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree absolutely that this is what tables are for. I think it would be an abuse of the running header template to use that for this. But personally, I can't stand all these so-called "convenience templates" that make it quick and easy for experienced editors to write wikicode that no newb has any hope of ever comprehending. "{{ts|lh12|bc}}"? "{{ts|it1|vtt}}"?? "{{ts|ar|vtt}}"?! Even I don't understand what any of this stuff does, and I've been around for years. It would probably take me an hour of research to figure it all out. I would code it nice and clean and accessible to all, as

{| align="center"
| align="right" | 1.
| Effect of monthly "distribution" of precipitation on thickness of rings of growth; Prescott, Arizona
| align="right" | 19

Hesperian 01:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I should not have used shortcuts for demo purposes, but for table design in on the fly production mode, it's peerless. Previously, I struggled with understanding the variations and placements of the style parameters. Now, I keep an offline copy of THIS TABLE for a handy and a very quick reference for rarely used parameters. The rest I know by heart.
Also corrected my shorthand sample to match User:Hesperian's example. — Ineuw talk 06:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Ooo, I'm so tempted to riff on "peerless" here. Hesperian 06:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Please go ahead and riff. :D. — Ineuw talk 07:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
This template is easier to use quickly, so I have created the same on the French wikisource (with history); would it be possible to have a bot to develop {{ts|al}} into style="align:left;" and so on? It would be easier to use but more understandable for visitors. Is it possible? Thanks a lot to the three of you! --Zyephyrus (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I like the idea of such templates being tagged into a "convenience templates" category, with the understanding that any transclusion of any template in that category would be fair game for replacement by a bot at any time. But I don't know if there is community support for that. Hesperian 10:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
"Convenience templates" and a potential bot sounds OK. However, I use templates like {{ts}} partly because I think it would be easier to understand for new, non-experienced users. CSS is gibberish to most people. A table style template simplifies (a little) wikimedia's notoriously difficult to understand table formatting. (Tables have been raised as one reason why some people don't edit Wikipedia et al, and I've met experienced Wikipedians who go a little pale at the thought of creating one). So, it's not just convenient for experienced users. Regardless, a bot that could, in theory, go through everything after a human is done with it should work. It might make it harder for a new user to edit the table later but not by too much. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with bots changing things afterwards. I am not against CSS coding, it's just that when I create a table the shortcuts are real time savers.— Ineuw talk 11:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how shorthand makes things easier for newbs. A newb with a modicum of syntactic intuition can guess what

{{small-caps|It}} was a dark and stormy night

does; but simply replace {{small-caps}} with {{sc}} and you've lost them. If we were really committed to making things easy for newbs, we would be coding the table example above as

{{start table | align=center}}
{{new row | valign=bottom}}
{{new cell | align=right}} 1.
{{new cell | align=left}} Effect of monthly "distribution" of precipitation on thickness of rings of growth; Prescott, Arizona
{{new cell | align=right}} 19
{{end table}}

Note how much longer this code is. The goal of making our code easy for newbs leads us away from opaque shorthand. Hesperian 11:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The {{new cell}} etc templates probably would help. For the present, however, with a template like {{table style}}, the documentation is only a click away, which is more than can be said for css code. Table style could probably be improved, with come clear descriptions in the documentation and natural language codes in the template. For example, personally, I know what "margin:0 auto 0 auto;" does but I can never remember the correct code, while I can remember "mc". A lay description and alternate code(s), say "centre table" and/or "float centre", might help with that.
I do support, however, a bot that can expand out abbreviations. ie. {{c}} into {{center}} and WS:COPYVIO into Wikisource:Possible copyright violations. Both can be problems for beginners. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


It has been a couple of weeks, seems like the suggestion of a bot to expand templates (i.e. {{c}} into {{center}}) is well received or at least not hated ;) Does anyone have a bot, willing to do the work? JeepdaySock (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


I am interested to use text of Dracula on my website. Just a question:
Is that text released under public domain, or is it released under CC BY-SA? --Einottaja (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Dracula is in the public domain. It was published before 1923 (US law) and Stoker died more than 70 years ago (UK law). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyright law varies by country. Author:Bram Stoker Died in 1912, per {{PD-old}} when the author has been dead more then 100 years the work is considered the public domain worldwide. It may not be public domain in your country until next year. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Image Guru[edit]

needed to pull image from 2nd page of this short PDF in order to add it to the missing page for it in Index:Cartoon portraits and biographical sketches of men of the day.djvu. TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You could do as follow: 1. Convert pdf to djvu (using e.g. Any2DjVu). 2. Once in djvu, in DjView you can export the page and save it in the format you need.--Mpaa (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Have you seen the extensive list of stand-alone jpgs for that work (which are also usable for the Once A Week periodical(s))? I'd prefer to follow the existing lead plus djvu would further [re]compress the image I just uncompressed in the PDF. Thanks anyway. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I guess I have something to learn, I am not sure I followed you. If you uncompressed the image to get the PDF, don't you have it already then? And the list you mention is derived from the Cartoon.djvu so what's the difference? A confused Mpaa … :-) --Mpaa (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I do have the image (and in hindsight I probably should have inserted that page as a djvu as well though I can't import the backgound layer found in the original). My problem is always trying to match an image to the others in any given work dimesnsion & color wise so I just gave up trying. Other folks usually take the ball and run with it at this stage of the game. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. User:Billinghurst beat me to it while I was doing sheep maths. :-) However in the future, please feel free to ask me for image cleanup & upload, or file download & upload as I've done earlier. I have the time, the bandwidth, and unlimited internet usage, and do it while proofreading. However, there may be a delay when I am in math class. — Ineuw talk 21:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Bit of university library subscription site raiding[edit]

It would be cool to have all of Poe's Tales of the Grotesque and Arabesque. Only facsimile on the net is held by ProQuest's Chadwyck-Healey Literature Collection's Early American Fiction 1789–1850 collection. Could someone with access to it grab it? Prosody (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

SRF v Ananda jury Verdict[edit]

Hello not sure what to do next. Please see what I have done so far. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi still needing help! Is anyone available? Red Rose 13 (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

File to fix[edit]

I've tried to find a complete workable version of Index:The Exploration of Australia - Calvert - 1896.djvu to convert and replace the current flawed one with no luck. I cobbled one together from 3 incomplete/botched first editions from GoogleBooks and uploaded the finished .PDF to Commons. It still lacks a text layer however.

Can anyone with access to Internet Archive and the free time upload it there so they can eventually convert it to a workable .DjVu to replace our trashed file here? TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

GO3, IA (MSN) already has the file in djvu format. See info and link below. William Maury Morris II (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Calvert scientific exploring expedition. (Australia, 1896) (1905)

Author: Hill, J. G
Subject: Calvert Scientific Exploring Expedition (1896-1897); Australia -- Discovery and exploration
Publisher: London : G. Philip & Son, Ltd.; [etc., etc.]
Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT
Language: English
Call number: SRLF_UCLA:LAGE-1614638
Digitizing sponsor: MSN

<sigh> 1905 = some other edition that is not the 1896 First edition. (Thanks for playing though ;) I saw that one early on on my self-imposed quest and said 68 pages seems kinda short compared to 370 something. 09:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've downloaded and then uploaded the file but it's still in PDF only at IA: [8]Ineuw talk 09:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The secondary title is "The Exploration of Australia-1896 reconstructed". Should they not create a .djvu automatically or do I have to request it? At this point I am sort of lost. — Ineuw talk 09:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

PDF with text
Full Text

Ineuw, it now is in the above formats. -- William Maury Morris II (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think DjVu, etc. creation is automatic & can take a day or so before it happens DONE & done. If you have the time please tak a whack at Image Guru above. Thanks for pitching in either way.
Edit: I have to give IA credit - if you give them a decent file to work with, you get a stupid easy text-layer to work with. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Need file moved to Commons[edit]

After many failed attempts to add a hidden text layer to Commons:File:EB1911 - Volume 11.djvu (Volume 11 of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica), I've finally found a way to add the OCR'd version of the file without the upload timing out before it finished.

Problem now is that the text-heavy DjVu, File:EB1911 - Volume 11.djvu, needs to be moved to Commons from en.WS to replace the existing DjVu file there. Can someone with the know-how and/or needed access handle this for me? TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I am downloading as I write this. Sorry for not seeing this request earlier. — Ineuw talk 09:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneIneuw talk 10:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason now why we should not delete the local copy? - Htonl (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it can be deleted, but first please check if everything is OK. — Ineuw talk 11:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Local copy deleted and the OCR'd text-layer is still there. Thanks again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

New license required template at Wikisource article Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: A World that Stands as One[edit]

At the bottom of the Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: A World that Stands as One page is a "New license required" template. I want to include the speech transcript from the New York Times Homepage and then remove the template. Can I do this or is there something I must pay attention to? Thanks in advance. --P3Y229 (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It might be {{PD-USGov}} if it was given in his capacity as a Senator (or President). Note that a few of Obama's speeches have been deleted because they were part of his election campaign and therefore not free as work of the US government. I think this one is OK however. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


United Nations Security Council Resolution 8 has some errors inside. People's Republic of Albania and the Mongolian People's Republic are missing. See [9] or en:United Nations Security Council Resolution 8 Kollektivwesen (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that the external link ( given above, is dead. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I hate the un homepage. They've use something for access so the Link just works if you do something else before (I dont know what exactly is the problem). But it should work if you get to the site from [10]. Kollektivwesen (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct, there are missing pieces, those you point out and also the "Decision" is missing. You are welcome to correct it, and welcome to Wikisource. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
ok I inserted the missing parts. But I dont think the "Decision" is part of the resolution. (Look at the dates) Kollektivwesen (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Brandon Head.- The Food of the Gods : A Popular Account of Cocoa, 1903[edit]

Hello ! I am new on this Wikisource. I use to edit on the french one. Can I have some help to make The Food of the Gods A Popular Account of Cocoa better looking ? I think there is something bad with the header, for example. Thanks. --Ambre Troizat (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the header. The work needs (major) reformatting though, and time … May be it is better to start from scans. There is one available at Internet Archive (to be checked for integrity).--Mpaa (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I will upload the .djvu to the commons, I already downloaded the for the images.— Ineuw talk 01:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Uploaded the file and created the index page but it's Google's notice is the first page. Essentially, is there a way to set a particular page as the displayed page without having to perform surgery? Also, the original hard cover is blank, so I wouldn't know which page to select. — Ineuw talk 02:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmmmmm, Learnt something. The Google watermark needs to be removed before the upload. Any suggestions GO3? :D — Ineuw talk 02:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
PS: Index:The food of the Gods - A Popular Account of Cocoa.djvu.— Ineuw talk 02:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Any watermark needs to be removed from the PDF before DjVu conversion. This makes it possible to trim or add pages as needed too. Also, there is nothing wrong with using a PDF for transcription as long as it has its own embedded text-layer (the test for this is if you double-click on a word and it highlights opposed to the entire page highlighting). The source being Google, its not likely to have a text layer however. I'll take a crack at it tomorrow & report back. Do Not Start Any ProofReading in the Meantime. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Message received and understood. What I was trying to do is learn the process. No one has spoken about this work as being needed/wanted. So please, don't not rush. The file has about 66 pages of images and that's what I was interested in - to assess the quality etc. I wouldn't upload them because the page count is not finalized, although the commons category for the book & the images is already prepared: Food of the Gods: CocoaIneuw talk 05:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I've cleaned the PDF of watermarks and compression. Once its been verified for completeness (sorry no time for so many images), you can upload it to IA for conversion to DjVu & re-upload at commons File:Foodofgods.pdf -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your work. I haven't seen the djvu on Internet archive. This book is so beautiful ! --Ambre Troizat (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


I hope that this is acceptable.— Ineuw talk 01:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not. TEXT-LAYER BEFORE IMAGES. ALWAYS. Can somebody upload it to IA so they can OCR it upon DjVu conversion. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Will do it right now. — Ineuw talk 02:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Here is the IA uploadIneuw talk 03:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, don't want to interfere, but it is not necessary to re-treat the pdf to djvu on IA before uploading the djvu here or on Commons... you can use winddjview or one of its "derivee" for other platforms to simply remove the "Google" page at the beginning of the book smiley
Have a very nice day --Hsarrazin (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hsarrazin, you are correct. The IA process of conversion was completed, the .djvu file has been uploaded to the commons and categorized as commons:Category:Food of the Gods: Cocoa (book) where the images will also be stored. The Index: has also been created. The first batch of images is being uploaded as well.— Ineuw talk 11:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Images upload to the commons is completed. — Ineuw talk 02:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Best place for a Latin transcription[edit]

I would like to transcribe File:Kefalonia Fae51 text.pdf (from the Assos Venetian Fort in Kefalonia) and provide an English translation. Should I go ahead and create it on en.wikisource? -- (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, translations into English should be created on the English Wikisource. You can also transcribe the original to Latin Wikisource (which, with Double Wiki, will allow readers to compare both on the same screen). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I've never played with DoubleWiki Extension, so that's a handy thing to try out. Thanks -- (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, Latin and English done Page:Kefalonia Fae51 text.pdf/1, though the DoubleWiki seems to lag badly and still points to initial or blank versions for the moment. -- (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
They still need to be transcluded to the mainspace: Inscription at the Assos Venetian Fort in Kefalonia and la:Inscriptio in Asson Veneto Fort, Cephallenia (it's the best I could do in Latin, it may need to be moved). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
In Latin, "fort" is castellum. I think it would be better as "Inscriptio ex Castello Asson Veneto Cephalloniensi". --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Image from Google Books needed[edit]

Hi. Is there anyone able to get a page from this google book [11]? It is supposed to be this one. It is enough that you store it somewhere locally here on en.WS, and I can take are of the rest. Thanks in advance.--Mpaa (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe that image link you show on Google is only a partial image. It's just the top portion for advertising the book for sale. Take a look at these two links to see if your image is there.

Hathitrust has several versions. I will to look at your WS book's beginning to see if I can find that page you want. Kindest regards, —William Maury Morris IITalk 22:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the image of that man. I even downloaded that negative you show and converted it to a positive image and then lightened it and still I have not seen him in my searches. Perhaps Google sells the best and leaves garbage for us to sift through in some of their books. I did notice the book is for sale. Buy the book and scan that page. You're welcome, —William Maury Morris IITalk 22:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I cannot access the content from where I am. Vol. 1 is difficult to find on-line. I managed to find a copy online after a lot of searches. I also tried to search Google Images to see if I could find that image or some clue where to find it but no success. Too bad. Sooner or later, someone with a copy of that book will pass by here and fill the gap …--Mpaa (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
French Volume I is hard to find when you start out in the Italian GooBoo (link far above 1st provided) instead of the obvious alternative to "French" (i.e --> French Canadian (or Canada) - then switch URL to the U.S. dot com domain - which leads to a 'view all editions' with additional results - one of which being a viable, full-view version at .

I took the liberty of merging the portrait without the author's name (p. 5) with the page containing the author's name but had only half the portrait (p. 7) and extracted the result to File:4mpaa.pdf for you to manipulate further as needed. Please delete when done. Just ask if that is not "good" enough and we'll find a better way to extract the image from the original, etc. if need be. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks--Mpaa (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Table Help[edit]

I created Help:Table it is mostly a basic introduction from w:Help:Wikitable, there is more extensive direction at w:Help:Table, and some good examples at w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables. My first thought had been to move most of the other content from there to here, cleaning it up and consolidating it into a single page. But there is a lot of information and I am not sure how stable it is over the long haul (i.e. years). Any thoughts on if it would be better to simply reference the Wikipedia pages for further information or to move it all here and keep house on it ourselves? JeepdaySock (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

After looking at the w:Help:Table and w:Help:Wikitable pages recently, I was impressed and (for what it's worth) in my humble opinion, it would be best if a single central set of help files exist for cross wiki features and transcluded in Wikisource. Any information which we have and they don't, should be added to those pages. — Ineuw talk 11:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
According to Signpost, Wikipedia are having their own help page improvement drive and it mentions the fragmentation of the table help documentation. If we do import anything, it may be a good idea to wait to see if how they resolve this. For Wikisource, I think we should have at least the basics locally and a link to Wikipedia for more detail; then add more pages or subpages for Wikisource-specific help. We don't often use tables in the same way as Wikipedia, for example. In my experience, we try to match the formatting of the original table instead of adding a wikitable-class table. It might help to cover that. Speaking of formatting, tables are often used for typography and layout, which Wikipedia avoids. It might warrant its own help page. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, for now I will keep it simple here, reference Wikipedia for the more complex, and add a section for Wikisource specific (typography and layout), if need be the later can be broken out to a stand alone page later. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I usually use m:Help:Table for assistance. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I am looking for for a list of all the parameters and valid values (i.e. style="text-align:center; width:80%;") that can be used in formatting in tables. I have been all over Meta including m:Category:Editor handbook and am not finding it. There is more good stuff at w:Help:Wiki markup but still not what I am looking for. Any ideas? JeepdaySock (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
That's more standard HTML (or CSS, really) than anything to do with Wikimedia. Wikibooks might be a better place to look for that sort of code; Wikibooks:Cascading Style Sheets, for example. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you consider copying the HTML code column FROM THIS TABLE? At least, it's a good beginning. Having built numerous tables, I believe that by now, almost all codes relating to wiki tables exist in this table.— Ineuw talk 18:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Now that seems more along the lines of what we need here. Still, there is no guarantee that wikicode allows for the entire table specification to operate as advertised. [12] [13]. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping that others will double-check my recently added columns of table/row/cell. My main concern is with the row column. — Ineuw talk 21:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Well we should probably add a 6th column for notes. Some browsers and browser versions handle/support certain coding while others handle them differently or not at all. In addtion to that, some values can be inherited from parent tags, etc. by default and/or if present. The additional Notes column could handle these as we discover them. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, I will add it later this evening. — Ineuw talk 23:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done
WOW; I think User:Ineuw/Sandbox5 should move to Help space. Jeepday (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Does this discussion Wikisource:Scriptorium#Something_has_changed_-_deprecated_parameters, mean that all the stuff at User:Ineuw/Sandbox5 is no longer correct? JeepdaySock (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Note moved to appropriate space as Template:Table style/doc. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

For someone with a working OCR button[edit]

Can somebody who still has a working OCR on-the-fly button in the Page namespace take a stab at creating a bunch of 1 page or less works listed in Category:Index - Text Layer Requested. The batch of Indexes in question primarily deals with letters from Roosevelt to Churchill but anything with "NARA" in the naming is suspect. As mentioned, these are mostly a single page of content and conveerting them to DjVu just for a dozen lines of text is a waste of time never mind effort. TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


Are typos retained or corrected? The particular page I'm wondering about is Page:The Government of Iowa 1911.djvu/23, where I've commented about the typo. I didn't see anything about it, either way, in Project:Style. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at the page. Took the liberty to add the {{SIC}} template used for typos, and proofread the page.— Ineuw talk 18:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Couple pages not transcluding[edit]

A couple Index pages (19, 20) are not transcluding into the Main, and I'm not sure if it is my formatting or something else. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

All 4 pages, 17, 18, 19 & 20, are transcluding for me. I only get a single link back to 17 at the top of the table in the mainspace however. Typically I'd get all the page links all neatly "bunched" together when it held a table spanning 2 or more pages from the Page: namespace but I guess that stopped with one of the latest code updates or something. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Yup. After your edit of page 20, I see all four pages transcluded. Thank you much, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

How can I find out the copyright status on this?[edit]

I have absolutely no idea where to begin. I found the text on Scribd, here's the information in it: Jack C 13:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It was published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1963, so the first thing is to check whether its copyright was renewed 28 years after publication. If it wasn't, the work is now in the public domain. The places to look are here and here. Angr 14:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
No, wait, that's the second thing to do. The first thing to do is check all the pages at the beginning and end for a copyright notice. It has to have the word "copyright" or the © symbol. If it doesn't, it was published without a copyright notice and is public domain. Angr 14:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ordered lists using Roman Numerals[edit]

Are we at WS able to generate an ordered list using upper case Roman Numerals? Instructions I found over here don't seem to work here. I tried:

<ol type="I">
<li>No servant from the Strangers, could remain in the family of an Israelite, without becoming a proselyte. Compliance with this condition was the ''price of the privilege''.—Gen. xvii. 9—14, 23, 27.</li>
<li>Excommunication from the family was a {{sc|punishment}}.—Gen. xxi. 14. Luke xvi. 2—4.</li>

which renders:

  1. No servant from the Strangers, could remain in the family of an Israelite, without becoming a proselyte. Compliance with this condition was the price of the privilege.—Gen. xvii. 9—14, 23, 27.
  2. Excommunication from the family was a punishment.—Gen. xxi. 14. Luke xvi. 2—4.

Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The type attribute was deprecated in HTML 4, and is not supported in HTML 4.01. We should use CSS instead.
<ol style="list-style-type:upper-roman">
  1. No servant from the Strangers, could remain in the family of an Israelite, without becoming a proselyte. Compliance with this condition was the price of the privilege.—Gen. xvii. 9—14, 23, 27.
  2. Excommunication from the family was a punishment.—Gen. xxi. 14. Luke xvi. 2—4.

Thanks, Mpaa... As I proofread along, Weld also uses (a.), (b.), etc. 'bulleting' instead of a., b.,—which, if I opted for the lower case ordered list formatting, I would be straying from the original rendering. I'm gonna have to give the formatting a thinkover, but am glad to now have another option to use in the future. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking for two WS pages[edit]

I am searching for two WS pages (but can't find them). One was for new additions to be listed by the person making the addition, and the other is a (partial) list of Index or Project pages need to be proofread. — Ineuw talk 17:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if these are what you're after, but a couple of possibilities are:
  • On the Index page of a work, click on "What links here", this will give you the last 50/100/250/500 changes to pages related to the Index;
  • On the Index page of a work click on the icon in the top right of a paper-clip on a document, this will give you a list of pages in the Index that have been created, along with whether they've been transcluded and their current proofreading status;
  • Go to Special pages and select "List of index pages", then type "Popular" in the search box (I assume its PSM you're thinking about). This will give you a list of the index pages with a coloured completion bar; or
  • Check out Category:Pages by proofreading status and the subcategories in Category:Index Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I have no problems with PSM whatsoever. Things are humming along just fine. :-). The web pages I am referring to were standalone and manually edited. In one, users were supposed to add their latest contribution but, I haven't seen this page in a long while. The other listed works suggested for proofreading and was also manually edited. I don't know in which namespace they existed. In any case I was only going to propose their removal. :-) — Ineuw talk 13:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah. You're looking for pages like WS:PR, WS:RT, {{New works}}, & Wikisource:Proofread of the Month/validation works Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
You mean {{New texts}}, right? :) Jafeluv (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Beeswaxcandle and Jafeluv, all three suggestions are good. Thanks.— Ineuw talk 07:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Pagelist not working on index page[edit]

Not sure why I should go with this, so might as well try here... I have an index page on fi.wikisource which gives a "Wikimedia error" every time I try to open it. The index is here (see also edit mode). It looks like the page works just fine if I remove the <pagelist /> tag from the index page. Other indexes, such as this, work without problems with the pagelist tag. If I try to create an index here on the English WS (at Index:Se Wsi Testamenti Mattheus-Johannes.pdf) and look at the preview, the pages are shown without problems. Anyone have any idea what might be causing the issue? Has someone else run into this kind of problem before? Jafeluv (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a server error. Tried the supposedly working Index, created a page, saved it, and on re-opening, it crashed. There must be a software error of some kind. Also, the navigation arrows to pagination are missing in the Page: namespace.— Ineuw talk 13:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
You don't have either "real" index: or page: namespaces. No evidence that they exist sitinfo api or existed settings. Looks like you need to get them created through a bugzilla, and the existing pages migrated from the false namespace that exists. If you had them, they would seem to have been trashed somehow. CyWS recently went through that process, and before them nlWS, so they both have the right requests in bugzilla to guide you. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I'll look into filing a bug for creating the separate namespaces. Hope that fixes the problem... Jafeluv (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Followup: That's --Malyacko (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Basic question[edit]

Well, I'm quite new to wikisource and I don't understand something on this page. Currently, I've got a space between the 2 chapters. If I delete the {{nop}}, they look like one big chapter. How could I have 2 chapters without big space between them? Sorry if it's not the right place to ask this. Zil (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Asking here is just fine. I suggest you use {{img float}} to make the text wrap around the image. Then you should be able to delete the {{nop}} at the end of the first paragraph. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks. It works. Zil (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Another basic question, on page 60, I'd like to replace in the table the word line or double line with a line or a double line. Is it possible ? Zil (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Found a solution with {{rule}}. Sorry for that question... Zil (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Lost custom toolbar[edit]

Completely lost all my custom toolbar buttons when I tried to add a new button. Does anyone have working custom (user defined) toolbar for me to look at? Also, if someone knowledgeable could look at my setup? I tried the older and the newer .js button coding to no avail. Cleared the cache thoroughly with each test. I have copies of both coding styles so nothing is lost if it's damaged.

Just to note, my Vector css has code to hide some standard editor buttons. This doesn't interfere with the vector .js. I tried it with or without it. Thanks in advance. — Ineuw talk 10:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Chapter break in notes.[edit]

Hi, sometimes the chapter break in notes works like here. Sometime it doesn't, here. Could someone tell me why? If not, how to make it works? Thanks - Zil (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not understand why it was or was not working but someone show me a work around with <p></p>. Zil (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep it simple, just open a paragraph where necessary. No need to open the initial paragraph, just open subsequent paragraphs. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
If you are talking about the continuations of the references, then you need to tie all the respective follow to the initial name, that is if you start with name=p140, then the continuation of the ref(s) will by follow=p140. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Help with a 1962 book[edit]

I've been looking for a really important missing book that I can work on (in my own subject area), and think I have found one: The Algae (1962) by Valentine Jackson Chapman. However, I need help on two points:

(1) Is the work under copyright? The book has been digitized at the Internet Archive, which explicitly notes no copyright problems there. I have made an attempted search of my own, and also found no problems. The book was published in both London and the US, but with no renewal that I can find. The author died in 1980, according to his WP article.
(2) If the work is not under copyright, would someone be able to assist me in uploading the DjVu file? I think that once the file is uploaded to Commons, then I can handle everything after that (except images, but that comes later, and I can learn). However, I haven't yet done a DjVu file upload. I have found a clean looking copy at [14].

Thanks in advance for any replies and assistance the community can provide. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This work is under copyright in New Zealand (life + 50), and therefore cannot be uploaded to Commons until 2031 (Commons requires documents be PD in both US and country of origin).

The reason there is no renewal in the databases, is that a second edition was published in 1973. This second edition remains copyright in US until 2069 and NZ until 2031. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think I'l keep looking, as I'd rather work on something that can be uploaded to Commons (though I understand that English Wikisource uses different criteria for local uploads). Just for clarification, though: the publication of a second edition does not affect expiration of the copyright on the first edition, yes? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
As it looks to be PD in the US it can be hosted on Wikisource include the tag {{Do not move to Commons|expiry=2031|why=the file is not Public Domain in the originating country}}. In 2031 it would be moved to commons. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
My guess is not, but the arcana of US copyright law is outside my general knowledge.

I've just asked my partner why we don't have a copy of either edition, and I'm told that the taxonomy in it was old-fashioned at the time of publication and that it is now so out-of-date that there's no point. (Also Chapman was memorable for lectures that weren't.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A good algal book can be useful, even if the taxonomy is out-of-date, but if Chapman is dull, and focusses overly on taxonomy, then it may not be worth the effort. Would that Fritsch were available as a scan! Though his taxonomy is dated, his morphology is still useful. Unfortunately, I could find no scan of his work (and so have not checked the copyright). --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Fritsch died 1954, so his works become UK available in 2015. We'd need to check for a US renewal at that time and then start hunting for a scan - or scan the copy on our shelf. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Style Height[edit]

I am working in my sandbox and am not able to get height to adjust as a percentage. It works as px but not as %. The goal is a dynamic alignment that adjusts based on browser window size so using px is not the best choice, though it is not as problematic as width (which is working as %).

  1. 25%
  2. 5%
  3. 25px

JeepdaySock (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Found the solution! Use "em", set the height to a variable of the font size, which as it is not set by a table parameter is the user/browser setting. To me it looks like setting an empty cell to a height of 2em gives a good result. JeepdaySock (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  1. 15em
  2. 2em
  3. 25px
I could be thick, but why? There are so many devices/screens/... on which it may be viewed, and with things like EPUB output, without seeing the reasoning it seems to be a somewhat less worthwhile exercise. Generally if I need an extra row height, I just stick in an extra row with a &nbsp; in one cell so that the cell doesn't collapse. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Working to give options for a bit I am working on at Help:Table, In this case the need is to add volume to empty cells.
no added height or width
added width only
added height and width
For the most part your right it really does not matter, but in this case the need to force height seemed evident, and using px seemed a bad choice given the impact it would have on users/applications using small font.

Any rules here?[edit]

Hi, just happened by for another reason and decided to update some links when I found that a template {{Copyright-until}} might be broken. When you add a link to Wikipedia the italics go away. I assume that is not supposed to happen? I found a work around, which I did to my entries. It looks like an easy fix to the template, but did not know if I should touch it. Especially if others have done the manual work around, theirs will break as will mine. Or, there be be jealous template guardians. I've been in Wikipedia AfC for long enough to be semi-parnoid/schizoid, but I know my way around Wikimedia a bit. --  :- ) Don 02:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikisource is a friendlier place then Wikipedia and we don’t have the crowds of people that they have. Go ahead and fix it, if you make it worse rollback is easy enough :) JeepdaySock (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Apart from adding "what he said ^^^". As an extra note, any of the critical templates, or more widely used templates will have a level of protection. I would encourage you to use the sandbox for each template if you think that it is transformational in its original process and then you can seek other's opinion, and we do try to be helpful at Wikisource:Scriptorium. 11:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


Hi, what is the convention regarding apostrophes? E.g. see the difference between the apostrophes in the titles of Cato's Letter No. 73 and Cato’s Letter No. 65. Which one should I use? Thanks. Leucosticte (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The general convention is to use "typewriter" marks rather than "curly". See WS:STYLE, Formatting point 5. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The "Help" page[edit]

Wherever the help page is I could not find it. I typed Help in the search area and ended up with a poem entitled "Help" by John Greenleaf Whittier. I should have least gotten the Beatle's "Help" song. Where is a page on how to format text? I wish to show it to someone new and it may be easier if that page is better than my explanation online to that someone new. "Help", —William Maury Morris IITalk 13:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It is at WS:HELP, a quick search for help finds several pages Help, Help! and Author:Arthur Helps. Indicating a disambig page might be in order. I am just making a quick stop in so don’t have time to do it now. I also see we don’t seem to have much on the disambig process here. Jeepday (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Jeepday, a new person would not think of looking for WS:HELP (I have that listed on my talk page.) A new person is going to type HELP to see where it takes him or her and hope that they will end up in a place like WS:HELP. I seriously doubt a new person would even think of "WS" preceding Help and then too, as you have stated, there is that disambiguation that needs to be perfected. Respectfully, Maury (—William Maury Morris IITalk 05:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a "help" link in the MediaWiki:Sidebar. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Help is now a disambig page. Jeepday (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Table divided onto two pages[edit]

Hi, I have a problem getting a table to format correctly on the page A Simplified Grammar of the Danish Language/Part II/The Numerals. The table is divided onto two pages, one of which is transcluded with the {{#section}} syntax and the other with <pages/>. Currently, both pages use a separate table, which means that the columns aren't lined up on the transcluding page. I've tried unifying the table by adding noinclude tags to the pages to prevent the intervening table begin/end tags from displaying on the transcluding page: [15], [16]. This worked fine on another page (where both pages are transcluded with <pages/> syntax) but not on this one for some reason. All I get is a huge mess of |- align="center" etc on the page. I also tried transcluding the section-only page with the <pages onlysection=.../> syntax, but the result was exactly the same. Maybe someone more familiar with the different transcluding methods can tell what I'm doing wrong? Jafeluv (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I've simplified the transclusion using a single pages command; and then used the header/footer technique of breaking and combining the table. Have a look and come back to me with any questions. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks great, thanks! Jafeluv (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Template doesn't show up in the assigned category page.[edit]

{{DoubleHeightRow}} is categorized in Category:Formatting templates with the default sort of "Double Height Row" which should have it listed under "D", but I can't find it anywhere on the Category page. Can someone point out the error of may way? Thanks.— Ineuw talk 12:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

How to define a second indent in a table cell under special circumstances?[edit]

I placed a sample Index table HERE with a problem which I am unable to resolve.

  • The table contains the universal style="padding-left:2.0em; text-indent:-2.0em;" to force a hanging indent to all lines wider than the Description column width. This works and looks fine with all standard index entries, except when the index description contains {{gap}}"{{gap}} and the line wraps. In this case, I don't know how to indent the cell. — Ineuw talk 13:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    You shouldn't set that type of indent ("universal" for lack of a better term) in the table tag because that applies the padding-left part to just about everything; not just those instances where a cell happens to contain text. style="padding-left:2.0em; text-indent:-2.0em;" should be applied, generally, to only the cells containing the targeted text. Then for the specific lines in question, all you need to do is substitute a larger value for padding and indent. See my changes in your sandbox. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks GOIII.— Ineuw talk 15:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Style codes inserted automatically[edit]

GOIII, I generate the Index tables] by a procedure which places the indent style codes in every cell. Do unused codes create an added burden when the page is generated? — Ineuw talk 08:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Unlocking PSM Volume 1 for correcting the default sort of categories[edit]

First, I apologize for these slew of posts today. Would it be possible to temporarily enable editing on volume 1 of PSM so that I can update the category default sort of the articles? Thanks. — Ineuw talk 18:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Resolved by User:Mpaa.— Ineuw talk 18:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Just for fun...[edit]

If anyone is willing to take a look... I have come up with an amateur solution (which works),—but one that is likely not technically correct.

A poem spans [Index] pp. 306 - 307. A footnote (an "Epistle") begins on p. 307 and spans pp. 307 - 309.

It (originally) would not transclude the complete footnote into the Main ('cause I don't know how to do it properly), so I placed the entire footnote on p. 307 in order to force transclusion. I left the footnote text (with ref-follow notation) intact on pp. 308-309 just in case someone knows a better way of formatting, and they won't have to do much copy/pasting. To top it off, it also contains a reference within a footnote (p. 309)—which I addressed correctly on p. 307, but not on p. 309.

Granted, it's a "mess"... But just in case someone wants a mental exercise. Thanks ahead of time (or not!) :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've just had a quick play, then realised that the ref-follow notation assumes that the continuation pages will be transcluded to the same mainspace page, which is why it wouldn't transclude. To do it "properly" in the Page namespace, you will need to use sections around smaller text and not use ref tags. Then you'll need to transclude the sections on 308 and 309. Personally, I feel that your solution is equally elegant (and a lot more pragmatic). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Works for me; thanks for taking a look. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Published a new article[edit]

Hey, I published The Negroes at Port Royal: Report of E. L. Pierce, Government Agent, to the Hon. Salmon P. Chase, Secretary of the Treasury to be linked from a Wikipedia article I'm writing. Can someone check through and make sure everything's okay? It would be great if there was some type of creation wizard for new contributors.Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I found this scan [17]. It would be great to upload it to Commons and proofread it. If you need help, I am sure plenty of people here would be glad to assist.--Mpaa (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
GOIII was faster and set up Index:The Negroes at Port Royal - Report of the Government Agent.pdf … --Mpaa (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
"Faster" but not necessarily "better". The PDF I found isn't behaving quality wise as they normally do (recent changes to PDF extension/reader?), so even converting or reusing a djvu might be better there. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I checked the text layer of the scan I posted above.c Quality seems comparable.--Mpaa (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
You can upload image documents here? Would this be able to be uploaded? Note that there's more than one pages that can be accessed from the top of the screen, but only the first page has been typed here.Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if you upload the files to Commons (they can be uploaded directly to Wikisource but Commons is preferred where possible). You/We could then create an index page (which would look a little like Index:Haycopy-1.jpg) from which they could be transcribed and proofread. This is only really practical with a small number of pages but it should work in this case. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Cool, are there people here who are good at reading fairly illegible text? I can't read a lick of it and I'd like to use it as a source for an article.Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I published another one at The Freedmen at Port Royal. It would be great if someone can look through that as well. Thank you. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Updating Instrument of Government (1974) (Constitution of Sweden)[edit]

This document needs some curating and updating; see the talk page discussion: Broken link; mismatched text?

I ran into this while trying to ascertain the status of Sweden's constitutional provisions for LGBTI minorities: this seems to be one area where the current Wikisource copy mismatches the source.

I'd like to fix this, but i lack the time and familiarity with Sweden's constitution (and its recent history) to follow this up on my own: I'm hoping that someone closer to this subject can help, or connect it to an editor who can. --Piet Delport (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  • A new page would need to be created. Jeepday (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikilivres works[edit]

Contributions have been made making note of works listed at Wikilivres, with sections created on Author pages taking 'preference' over WS works. Would I be too bold or in error to suggest to the editor that the Wikilivres sections take a 'back seat' to WS works? Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right. I do not mind references to other wikis, but they should not be the first line of a page.--Mpaa (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree, many authors already have Wikilivres sections but they are usually at the bottom (I think some might mix the links into the general bibliography). I believe Wikilivres is in the process of being taken over by Wikimedia Canada, so it will be a sister project (sort of; neice-project perhaps?) soon. So, I wouldn't object to any links being mixed in with the links to our works as long as they are clearly labelled. I would, however, put any special sections at the bottom of author pages. - AdamBMorgan (talk)
We could actually add wikilivres to {{plain sister}}. The links that I checked are actually to Wikilivres author pages rather than individual works. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Adding to {{plain sister}} sounds like a good idea to me. Jeepday (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


I'd like to add pages/articles from newspapers like the Seattle Union Record. What would be the author, the newspaper or the person who wrote the article or the editor? Are these articles appropriate? For example, I'd like to use File:Announcement of Seattle General Strike in Seattle Union Record.jpg.Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think such articles are appropriate. Some options I can think about:
If you are planning for many articles from different years, a structure with Union Record as main page and articles as as subpages, like Union Record/1919/Announcement of General Strike? See also The Times as an example.
If instead you have only a few articles, maybe a simple Announcement of General Strike (Union Record 1919) is enough (to be categorised in Category:Union Records for easy retrieval of articles).
As you have the scan, you need to set-up an Index page to transclude.--Mpaa (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there any wizard to help me set up the Index page? Or where are the instructions for doing that?Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a sort-of wizard for index pages, it will activate when you edit any page in the Index namespace (assuming you have javascript activated). For just one Jpeg scan, you should create the page Index:Announcement of Seattle General Strike in Seattle Union Record.jpg; then you just have to fill in some of the fields. There are instructions on Help:Index pages, especially the Using individual image files section. While that page is not finished, I believe this section is complete. (There is another help page, Help:Beginner's guide to Index: files, but that mostly relates to DjVu and PDF scans rather than Jpegs.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Missing index pages[edit]

Hate to do this... Pages 174 & 175 are missing from Index:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 4.djvu. They would come after Index page 211. An alternate source (for page borrowing) can be found here (p. 174). Sorry, and thanks... Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Move on to something else - the earliest I can get to playing with a ~600 page work like that is maybe by Sunday. Are we sure that is all that is missing/flawed. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Plenty else to do... I'll go pg. by pg. to be sure that's all that's missing. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Yup... only missing those two pages. Let me know if there's anything I can do. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Pages 174 & 175 inserted, cover (re)colorized, frontspiece portrait replaced. Wish I'd known about the other (3?) missing images in the scans; I might have been able to recover them too. That will have to wait for another day when you're that far along I guess. I moved all the pages in the page namespace already after the insertion point; don't know if any of those were previously transcluded so please follow up on that.

And FYI - the replacement you linked above is the first edition (1901) while the one we currently have is the second edition (1905). Lucky for us GoogleBooks had an extra 2nd edition in full view to pull from. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I didn't think about the image pages. I have already added the images using an alternate source, but when/if I get through the whole text, I'll alert you to have those pages added too. BTW, do you 'tap' in pages or 'tip' them in? And thanks for catching my error in choice of editions. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem - its just been a crazy week as far as spare free time goes. The reason behind asking for flaws of any sort is to try and bang everything out in one shot so I don't have to keep stuff around on my hard drive to the point where I forget what its for or how far I got in the actual fixing! To me, a missing picture is no different than a missing page except a missing picture typically still has a place holder for the page progression itself. You added the images for complete transclusion, and that is just fine, but without the scan pages from the source file to compare them to, its not really valid is it?

And I only swapped what I did because I saw the title page had a bunch of hand-written gibberish all over it, then by chanve noticed the blank page before the title was really a missing portrait and finally saw the obvious lack of color on the cover image after the two swaps were in since my viewer defaults to the top page when opened.

I don't know what you mean by 'tap' or 'tip'. I locate a substitute file, extract, prep and/or convert the the pages in question to DjVu, extract the bad pages in the existing DjVu, then insert the fixed DjVu stand-alones into the main DjVu using the same file names as the bad ones had. Inserting missing pages is the same except the naming of the inserted DjVu stand-alones must be something unique compared to the existing scheme. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: tip/tap: I recall hearing/reading somewhere about pages being 'tipped/tapped in' (i.e., added)... wasn't sure what the correct terminology was, so I thought I'd ask; my memory could be faulty where context is concerned, and I didn't think to Google it. And you're right about page validity without an appropriate scan—even where images are concerned; hadn't thought about images, being primarily 'text-centered'. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
More at when a photo/bookplate/note, etc. is 'tipped in' to a book. Could probably apply here also... Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Request: Guidance editing Index: pages[edit]

Recently EncycloPetey pulled me up on tagging blank pages with the designation "-" in the <pagelist>. He may have been right; or he may have been wrong - but in either case I am left in the dark as to the accepted procedure and/or norms, and upon request he has revealed he has no real ideas either. Do I take the message away that pleb editors like myself are not to touch Index: pages at all (presumably even to indicate validation complete, for example)? Even if this is an insulting conclusion; at least it is a definite rule to work to.

Yes, I am annoyed by the uncertainty this situation has generated. I wonder if that irritation shows just a little? MODCHK (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem lies in the fact that there is no Help page offering guidance on the issue of page numbering, and how to designate items such as images, title pages, pages absent text, and plates or maps. If we had such a guide, it would go a long way towards helping the sanity of the editors who otherwise would edit at cross-purposes, and perhaps provide more consistency across Wikisource. Right now, there seem to many many approaches, some of which are at odds with one another.
One key point in this is that the "-", even for the work in question An Argosy of Fables, is used to mark not just blank pages, but also the book cover and illustrations. There is no consistency anywhere as to what we mean when a page is denoted with a dash. On some works, I've seen it applied to title pages, the contents, and various other pages with important text. We need some sort of stated guidelines to restore sanity. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I had thought things like this were self-evident from past discussions - but maybe a help page is in order at this stage for the benefit of those that missed them (or even for those who still choose to ignore them). If our goal is to faithfully reproduce works as true as possible to the originals as published, the only things that do not warrant proplematic status are hand written notes, library stamps and the like since those are typically added after the "binding" of the pages into a book. If there is a graphic missing from the original in our thumbnails, then I would assume that is not being true to the original as possible and thus should be problematic. We've also come down on the idea in the past that adverts are not part of the original work but part of the publishing process; transcribing them are optional at best - including them is prefered (for ttal page count reasons primarily) but can be marked as not needing proofreading however. Using "-" for missing covers (almost never scan well) and for blank front and back matter is a sad reality because it is unlikely those will ever be made available in the quality high enough to ever replace the existing poor ones. It should never be used for illustrations known to be omitted.

Well, at least that is my understanding of what should amount to a guideline. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree we need a help page, and GO3 has summed up well what I believe has come to be the expectation. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It sums up a viewpoint well, but does not address the issue of concern that was raised. Perhaps we were unclear. The discussion as started is not about the content to be included, but the labelling of it on the Index page. OK, so there is an illustration, then how should it be labelled in the numbering system on the Index page? Also not at issue is the use of "-" for missing information, but we do want to know about using "-" as a label for existing information. Should a page with a dedication, publication information, title, ever be labelled "-"? Should interior blank pages be labelled with "-" if they were deliberately and clearly blank, but are part of the internal numbering scheme of the work? Isn't a blank page already signified by being colored grey on the Index page? That is the question for which we are seeking answers. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I do tend to use hyphens for pages with no number. I think I picked the habit up from a past Proofread of the Month (which I notice is still the standard, although the last PotM appears to use em-dashes). Technically it doesn't really matter as blank pages are not transcluded to the main namespace, where page numbers are visible as floating links. However, if you do not set a number or symbol in the pagelist, it will use an automatic number and it can be confusing if you appear to have two page 1's in the work. Hyphens just clean up the page list a little in my opinion, as they are small and the notation seems to be fairly intuitive. Anything else should work just as well. For some specific un-numbered pages I use the name of the page or some short-hand (ie. "Cvr" for cover; "Img" or "Plate" for an un-numbered illustration; "TOC", "title" etc).
Also, as suggested: Help:Page numbers (under construction). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I am aligned with Adam. Except if the blank page in the book are part of the internal numbering scheme of the work. Also for "special" Pages, if there is no numbering for them, then I "name" them as Adam.--Mpaa (talk)

But what you describe is not aligned with what Adam has said, as you have noted two great exceptions, and that's part of my point.

There seem to be multiple schools of thought on the use of the dash for marking pages in the Index. I fully agree that a dash can be used for labelling blank pages preceding or completing a work, but (as with Mpaa and several others) disagree about using them within a work, unless the page is not part of the internal numbering system, such as for the blank "back" of an inserted plate or map.

Take a look at Index:An argosy of fables.djvu. Here, there are clearly some pages at the start of the work that are not part of the page numbering system, and all but one of them is blank. Aside from labelling the "Cover", I don't think we'd have any disagreement about labelling those initial pages as "-". But look now at the Roman numbered pages that follow that. Some of these pages are explicitly given Roman numerals for page numbes in the work, some are blank, some have text, and two of them are the folio and verso of an inserted plate. Here, we would have a wide variety of opinions on how to handle the matter. Should page vi (blank) be doubly labelled as blank by both being colored grey and being marked with a dash? Is that what a dash is really for in our numbering scheme? True, the page won't be transcluded by the system because it is blank, but does that mean it shouldn't be numbered for convenience in working with the book? Would it not be better to be able to refer to "page vi" in a discussion rather than "the unnumbered page between page v and page vii"? Is there any gain at all in marking such a page with a dash?

Then look at pages like 110, 112, 120, and 122. These are intentionally blank in the work, but can clearly be determined to be a part of the numbering scheme, as the number (though not explicit) is made implicit by the page numbers found on the preceding and following pages.

That leaves still two more uses of the dash on the Index page in this work: inserted plates and the blank side of the inserted plate leaf. In this work, plates are clearly not accorded page numbers, as the preceding and following leaves both explicitly bear consecutive page numbers, so we can't apply numbers to the plate leaves. I can agree with labelling the blank side of the plate with a dash, as it has neither content nor any possibility of a page number, but labelling the associated illustration that way creates two problems. First, there is no difference then in the way a blank page and an elaborate and colorful illustration is labelled, so the Index page provides no clue as to the content of the page marked with a dash. The page will (eventually) be colored in green, but it could mean that it's an illustration, map, section header, publication statement, decorative fiddly bits, or any number of other things. Secondly, it makes it impossible to link to a particular illustration from somewhere else in the work. Illustrations in printed books are not always near the matter with which they are associated. For example, in this case, we have illustrations for one fable appearing in the middle of another fable, and not amidst the fable that it illustrates. In some other works, illustrations are not even located within the same chapter, and in some cases all illustrations are placed at the end of the volume, or in a separate volume. If the illustrations are thus marked with a dash, then no cross-linking is possible to assist the reader. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I would usually label the plates as "plate", "img" or something similar. If there is an internal label (ie. "Plate V") I would use that. There might be some confusion of terminology here: when I refer to a blank page, I mean a page that it literally blank. I don't count illustrations, maps, frotispieces, typographic ornaments or any other content as blank.
Judging what page numbering the book makers intended can sometimes be awkward. I have found that there is no consistent method of doing this. I agree that 110, 112, etc are all numbered pages; otherwise the page numbering does not flow properly. Page iv is a matter of judgement; I can't see any page numbering before page vii. There is a very good chance the 14th page was intended to be page iv. It is also possible that there is no gap between i and iii; so that the frontispiece on the 10th page is really page ii and the half-title on the 7th page is completely un-numbered (or the half-title is i AND the frontipiece is iii, leaving either the 8th or 9th page as un-numbered).
I'm not sure why linking is a problem either way. The page numbers only matter for anchors, which can be added directly if necessary (although I, again, would use a named label for plates and un-numbered illustrations anyway). A wikilink will work regardless, ie. Page:An argosy of fables.djvu/14 (which is blank and represented by a dash).
I don't see a problem with setting a page status to blank and the number to a dash or hyphen, if both are otherwise appropriate. The page number has to be something (actually, you could use the "empty" style but my preference is to have something there so the existence of the page is a little more obvious); it might as well be a dash, a hyphen or some other null character. If the the page numbers obviously continue through, and include, the blank page, then I would keep the number (which is easier anyway).
I'll add something to that help page as soon as we've ironed out a solution. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


Hello, as the instigator of this little thread of chaos, may I please state my position; which I believe is broadly in concord with those stated by George Orwell II, AdamBMorgan and Mpaa, but (obviously) at variance with that of EncyloPetey:

Firstly, these I consider show-stoppers:
  • I would never consider pages containing any original printed content (either text, illustrations or obviously mimeographed "written" annotations) to ever be "blank." (Clearly added library stamps, "Ex-libris" owner slips or scribbled graffiti does not make an otherwise "blank" page non-blank.)
  • Pages which for some reason have scanned as blank; but which are known to hold content are excellent candidates to be tagged as "Problematic"; and must be handled out of stream.
Having put aside the above cases; seeing something like:
13 14 15
-simply indicates the initial reviewer thought page 14 was blank, and provides no reassurance whatsoever that this decision has in any way been ratified; whereas
13 - 15
-suggests at least two actions with respect to this page have been taken, confirming page 14 is:
  • blank; (!)
  • ineligible for transclusion;
  • ineligible as a destination for cross-reference.

Pages which contain nothing but illustrations, irrespective of their "implied" (i.e. from sequence) page number I would tag as "Frontispiece", "Plate" etc. as appropriate; unless a better, unique appellation suggests itself (e.g. "Plate V." is better etc.)

I personally have no particular preference for the symbol used; be it "-", "−" or "―"; just so long as it is not something which may be taken as a page number.

Finally, to be completely perverse, I would consider a page containing no content whatsoever except for a page number (Roman or Arabic) to be non-blank and should be numbered accordingly (even though it will presumably be eventually transcluded as null.) MODCHK (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Final+1 (being perversely perverse?): Consistent with the above; I consider advertisements to 'never be eligible targets for marking as "blank" pages. By all means tag them separately and/or decline to validate them; but I do not believe it is correct to discourage their proofreading and subsequent validation either. There is often a good deal of Author: information hidden in end-of-book catalogues, for example! MODCHK (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've made a first draft of a complete guide to the fields on the Index page including the pagelist tag. You can find it at User:Beeswaxcandle/Sandbox3. It is not intended to be pretty at present, it's just about the content. Feel free to tweak, adjust, comment, &c. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Very good; I like it. Some interesting lessons embedded in there! MODCHK (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me, I would go ahead an post it like it is. Jeepday (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks good. Though I've only examined some portions carefully, it looks good enough as is to be posted. Two suggestions for the last section: (1) I'm not sure that the bit about roman numbering would be clear to a new editor. There should be an explicit statement that saying 5=1 produces "i" as the number for that page, "ii" for the next page, etc. (2) Not every source file we work from has a "Cover". Some are reprints of works, or unbound fascicles. In those situations, I might use "Title" for the title page, if it isn't numbered. I might even use "Title" for the title page of a book, if it's not part of the flow of numbering and is not the Cover. In fact, it is often the case that the Cover of a book from a library bears nothing of consequence, because the binding was added to the work after publication, so it might be worth noting that a "Cover" with no written or image content may not need to be labelled. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I've amended the notes to take these suggestions on board. Because in some of our files (particularly those from Google) the front cover is not page 1, I prefer to label the cover to indicate where the work properly begins—even when I've got no intention of using the image. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

1962 Baseball Guide[edit]

This book [18] (at IA) is the Baseball Guide and Record Book for 1962. We have very little on baseball, and a work like this would be of interest to many fans of the game. Question: How can IA have this on-line if the work was copyrighted in 1962? Has the copyright expired, was it not renewed, or is it still under copyright? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If not renewed it would be pd per {{PD-US-no-renewal}}. Jeepday (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
A very quick check didn't find any evidence of renewal, just the 1962 registration (reg. no. A554690). It presumably entered the public domain in 1991. (NB: This is brushing the edge of the renewal era; copyrights are late as 1963 still required renewal and many works from these years may now be in the public domain. It was 1964 when renewal became automatic.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
That might explain why it was the most recent volume of its kind on IA. There were at least a dozen similar volumes there, but this was the most recent and also among the most highly downloaded baseball-related items there. I don't know that I'll have much time to work with it, but getting it started might help to draw the attention sports enthusiasts.
However, just getting the work just started could both help promote what we do, and perhaps draw in a new editor or two eager to see such information made more widely available. You never know... It was when the "Eastern Question" became PotM that I started to get more involved here myself, as that resource would have made a huge difference to me had it been available back in college when I did one of my two biggest research papers then. Before that, my work here was spotty and limited. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
If there is anyone interested in taking this on, the work is now uploaded to Commons, with an Index page set up at Index:Baseball Guide and Record Book 1962.djvu. There is a category on Commons for all the images (and there are many) at commons:Category:Baseball Guide and Record Book (1962). --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Just starting out, would like some help double checking my work[edit]

I'm planning on uploading most of the edicts of the City of Frederick Mayor and Board of Alderman. I've already done two sets of minutes from their meetings, which are available here and here. I just want to make sure that first, these are within the scope of the project, and second that they are formatted properly.

I suspect that if I continue with this, I will need to make a few new categories in order to contain them as well.

There is also no guarantee that they will all find their way up there; I know from previous expirience I'm not terribly great at finishing these sorts of projects. Zellfaze (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

See Wikisource:What Wikisource includes for direction on what we include. I am not sure that meeting minutes qualify as government edicts for copyright notice. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Passed city ordinances though count for sure correct? I can remove the minutes if need be (along with contacting someone to purge them from the page history). I would still like to put up a copy of all of the cities laws though. Zellfaze (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
You can delete the minutes by adding {{Sdelete|G7 Author's request}} the pages will be deleted in a few hours. Passed city ordinances meet edict in theory. Why do you want to put them on Wikisource? I ask because we have relatively few federal or state ordinances on Wikisource, and so city ordinances while they meeting WS:WWI seem like they might be borderline enough to be deleted sometime in the future without a good rational to keep. Looks like the source you are using is the city web page. I am thinking "what if everybody posted city ordinances on WS?", I am just not seeing that is viable or economically supportable process for the m:Wikimedia Foundation. I would also mention that if the works support some other wiki project in the family, then the best course would be to get scans of the original documents and post them to Wikimedia Commons and follow the rest of the process to create validated content. I am not trying to chase you off, or discourage you, just trying to help you create works that will stand the test of time. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Well there are really two reasons. First it is what I am interested in, and secondly I wanted to have easier access to them than through my Frederick City's website. This way I could search them and such and more easily point others to them. I would love to put documents from my state up, but it just isn't my interest at the moment. I would love to get the scans, but that is more difficult for me to do than transcribing PDFs off the Frederick City website, which as you guessed is my current source.
Also I do not think that it would be a problem for the WMF to sustain. I read and post to wikitech-l and from the impression I get, the WMF has plenty of resources for anything within scope of the project. Just a minor thing though, I didn't mean to pick a fight if that is what it came out like.
I'm not scared off. I want to help out however I can. I'm a big fan of Wikimedia's projects in general, so it would be a little hard to scare me off. Thank you for your help. Zellfaze (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
PDFs can be uploaded to commons, and the accuracy of having the verifiability is highly desired. On a quick look through the only thing I see published that would qualify as edict of government is the city code which is published at (html not PDF). Jeepday (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll mark those two pages for deletion then and hopefully begin work on adding the city code. Thank you for your help Jeepday, I really appreciate it. Zellfaze (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

symbol needed[edit]

Is there a symbol character for an upside down sword? Moondyne (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Should be Unicode Character 'TURNED DAGGER' (U+2E38) ⸸ ⸸ but it not visible …--Mpaa (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

New paragraph[edit]

Anyone see why the last section (Compasses, Dividers, and Callipers.) on Page:Cassells' Carpentry and Joinery.djvu/19 is not displaying as a new paragraph? I'm not seeing any reason.--T. Mazzei (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing in the page itself that I can see would explain that behavior. The only possibility that springs to mind is that something about the relatively new {{right block}} or {{center block}} might be "leaking" into the format of the page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking it might be due to the {{right block}}, but I see nothing in the template that would cause this. It should just float a block with a fixed height and width to the right.--T. Mazzei (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't see anything either. I've added a <p> tag in the meantime, but ... ? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
In the {{right block}}, text alignment is included only if a height parameter is specified, in which case the value is set to {{{align|inherit}}}. That doesn't look correct to me. Shouldn't that be {{{align|{{{inherit|}}}}}} ? Or does normal coding allow for that kind of collapsed name call? In any case, shouldn't the alignment be outside the "height" check? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
As its being used now {{right block}} is producing an additional semi-colon in the resulting HTML (ie. div style="float:right; position:relative; width:300px;; height:350px; text-align:inherit;" - see the double semi-colon after 'width'?). This is killing the entire line for starters. Double semi-colon generations and text-indent being independent of height now fixed.

The entire premise is a bit off since it only makes sense to use block divs between paragraphs, not within them - since they are block elements themselves. You'd need to make them 'display:inline-block' if anything at all and drop the 'position:relative' bits (but I'm only guessing here; testing is needed). -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the extra semi-colon and fixing. Regarding the premise being a bit off: the purpose of the templates was to create a container that I could float left or right, within which I could position a group of figures (or other elements) using absolute coordinates. You cannot (as far as I know) position absolutely from an inline-block, hence the div rather than span. "position:relative;" in the container is required to allow absolute positioning relative to the container since "an absolute position element is positioned relative to the first parent element that has a position other than static."--T. Mazzei (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm just going by viewing the HTML source code. Every point where a div block appears, the insertion of the closing paragraph tag is inserted right before it. What should be the text in continuation of the same paragraph of text apearing after the final closing tag of the div block or blocks is "tagless" - making it "act" like a span but without the formal opening and closing 'span tags'. This was not a problem for the Figure template alone being a single block itself; the trailing paragraph text being relatively short in that instance as well - but when you right block floated 2 figure templates then center blocked the captions for each, you have something like 5 div blocks in play within a single paragraph. Seems like overkill in both cases and the fact the page doesn't end on a paragraph close doesn't help matters. I added an extra return and the ref tag in the footer field in order not to force an opening paragraph tag in the body. Who knows if that will transclude just as neatly when it comes to the final in the main namespce. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree it is a little ugly, but each of the multiple divs serves a purpose (though the positioning of the caption could be reduced to one div tag from 2 with some manual css or by creating another template). However, I cannot think of a better way of coding this which preserves both the functionality and flexibility. I have previewed (but not saved) the transclusion to the main namespace with both Opera and IE9 and it looks like it transcludes fine.--T. Mazzei (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
It does not transclude properly in Safari (just checked). I can check Firefox, but not before Monday. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
What I was really trying to get at last night was that some (if not all) of what you need to do for that particular work seems to have been "solved" by the Popular Science Monthly Project folks already (well Ineuw specifically). There's nobody better that I can think of who has dealt with figures like your's more than him. I suggest you touch base with Ineuw to see if he can shed some light on alternative coding that might work better for you. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
If it's of interest, Londonjackbooks has done some text experiments with these templates. See User:Londonjackbooks/sandbox. The templates seem to spread text so that each line is a new paragraph. {{Center block}} doesn't always move text into the centre of the page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
After doing some online searching, and looking at PSM, I've come to terms that there is no "proper" method of doing what I want to do, which always boils down to requiring a div inside a paragraph. The only solution is to move the figures outside of the paragraphs, which is simple enough. Not sure why the text is spreading, but in order for {{center block}} to work properly, you needed to fix the width. The CSS does not center with an undefined width, since it then assumes a width of 100%. I have "fixed" this so that when no width is defined, it uses CSS display:table, which collapses the container down to the width of the content.--T. Mazzei (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Right - there was no "proper" method under wikicode to begin with; its even worse lately with the recent move to deprecate non-HTML 5 entities. If there was a way to "style" the <img> tag directly, rather than always having to wrap it in something that hands down styling, this would all be moot - but we can't do that because the img tag is usurped by the wikicode controlling the File:/Image: entities.

I tried doing it the old way using tags and it looks fine to me (though I'm using an old version of IE; your mileage may vary). -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Corrected the "line spread" issue: had to do with having the content on the same line as a div tag (see User:T. Mazzei/Sandbox). Not sure what's up with that.--T. Mazzei (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I added the underlying HTML for those three examples - of cource the last one seems right. The off thing about the Wikicode is that it always adds a closing paragraph tag regardless of detecting the next tag as another paragraph opening tag or some other type of tag. This is inconsistent with the previous HTML specification(s) as the closing paragraph tag was always defined as optional. Its quirk most of us have learned to work around by now but its frequently done by an over-reliance on the bloated application of the div tag in the process. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyone having trouble pulling text layers?[edit]

Long story short - I can't seem to pull the text-layer under the intial edit mode for article creation in the Page namespace. Happens with first time uploads as well as (re)loads over existing files. Only applies to activity in the past 72 hours or so though. A file uploaded anytime before that pulls the text layer just fine. Happens when I upload here at en.WS or at Commons - same thing. I have purged myself, the files and the "server" to death too.

Can someon verify or disprove the same effect by 'pretending' to create a new page or two from both indexes (just don't save them) to see if the text layer pops up automatically for you folks:

Thanks for any attention in advance. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it's happening to me on these two indexes. I had this happen to me earlier in the week on Index:James Bryce American Commonwealth vol 1.djvu and I used your trick of purging the Commons file and it seemed to resolve it. I'll have a go at purging these two as well and see if it makes a difference. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I've double purged each file on Commons with no result. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Didn't think this was going to be that type of 'purge related' quirk - the Transclusion Status Detection Tool (book-ish icon on Index: pages) won't show any pages at all, be they transcluded or not, when its the stale-dead-cache issue that you mentioned had happened earlier in the week. I see everything created, transcluded or whatever for DNBv25 using the TSDT in this case, so its definitely something new. And believe me, I've exhausted the 'refresh and reboot' route enough for everyone today.

This (and the fact everytime I try to download a file from Commons, it drops the conection at around 3Megs in) has pretty much ruined my day. Its a relief to find out its not just me at any rate. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a bug in either mediawiki or the proofreadpage extension, probably since the last code update monday or tuesday. I'll try to join user:Tpt to discuss this trouble. Apparently there is no possible workaround. I'm unsure if all newly uploaded djvu are broken or only those from Internet Archive. Don't mark these books as "need a text layer" please. — Phe 19:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Bug openPhe 01:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for opening the bug. Just to confirm a query above, it's definitely showing up with non-Internet Archive djvus - I had the problem with some I'd generated myself. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In case it matters, I just replaced a text-layer lacking PDF file with one that now has an OCR generated text-layer...

... and the text dump upon 1st time page creation in the Page: namespace seems to be working fine. Please verify my findings.

Though the code involved between PDF & DjVu files are completely different when it comes to text dumping, this could mean the bug is not wmf-code-update related at all but DjVuLibre specific -- especially in light of the fact none of the DjVu PHP related code has been touched for sometime now. Errors after a main update where none of the affecting code has changed in the interim makes me think the existing software has become outdated when it comes to the common programing applied today.


Code: DjVuImage.php

  • Line 295 - possible incorrect file path
    • out "pubtext/DjVuXML-s.dtd"
    • in "share/djvu/pubtext/DjVuXML-s.dtd"

So, for the 4,689th time - will someone please update the DjVuLibre server install to the most current version. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably the best place to dump that is bugzilla:42466. It is getting attention from engineers. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Would if I could - I can't register to get an account so I post my observations here & hope - otherwise I would have ripped Doug and his "limited" perspective a gapping new one by now and probably gotten myself banned in the process. (i.e. - I can't fix any existing problem files because once I upload over the the flawed file - the once existing text layer is then, in effect, now "gone"). -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Pasted and wrapped — billinghurst sDrewth 14:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Its already proven to help isolate the problem to a memory overhead limit newly imposed on the DjVuLibre file previously in play all this time by some other key software component recently updated during of the core changes.

Now if you can take a hammer to the group and please explain ver. 3.5.24.? is still a year older than the current ver. available. It might contain new versions of the files currently in question and resolve this problem without the need to revert/modify the wmf core update at all. If it doesn't resolve the problem, you'd still have the latest baseline to work a solution from rather an outdated one that may or may not reflect the same baseline.

One can [maybe] "save" some memory by changing the switch value for DjVutxt.exe from -detail=page to -detail=line but I'm probably being overly optimistic there - if a simple text dump from even a small 10 page .DjVu file isn't coming through, I don't know what lowering the level of detail per page can accomplish exactly (other than the fact "lines" are the most "detail" we get in the dump as it is). -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

... or a more novel idea - somehow work in the switch -page=### to the DjVutxt.exe command line in the DjVuImage.php code where the ### reflects the same Page: suffix number that is being created. That way only a single page is called and dumped to the text-editing field instead of (what seems like to a layman like me) is a dump of the entire text-layer being called at every Page: creation and only when the internal-DjVu-page-number to Page:-suffix-number match each other (i.e. if Page:xxxx/150 is being created, the 149 pages before that get called then discarded before it displays the content of internal DjVu position 150 in the edit box).
Again, I'm just going by limited knowledge and local expierence with DjVuLibre -- but nowhere do I see or can even extrapolate from the .php file the command line switch & value for calling & dumping a single page's embed text-layer content. Without such a setting, all the pages are dumped at once until the end of the text-layer is reached or until it is manually aborted.... and that apparent ommission is all that I'm basing my "theory" on. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A patch has been developed, test and applied to the main code. This issue is FIXED!!! (many, many thanks to Phe & Tpt who helped to fix this).

All files uploaded/affected during the period in question must be [hard-]purged on their respective pages on Commons once or twice for the text-layers to eventually come through now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how many here knows what " [hard-]purged on their respective pages on Commons once or twice" means. <Shrug> wink —Maury (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I don’t know, there is discussion started at Help_talk:Proofread#Purging_a_file to add something. Hopefully those in the know will explain it to those of us in the clueless state. Jeepday (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Index text pages[edit]

I added the following works: [19] and [20] but the text pages are not showing anything. I must have missed something. Any ideas? Daytrivia (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That problem has already been raised in the Scriptorium. Apparently there was a software update earlier this week, and thus far, no one has been able to access the OCR text layer (text pages) for newly uploaded documents since that time. Look a section up at the discussion labelled "Anyone having trouble pulling text layers?" --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks much. Daytrivia (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Have you tried using the OCR button in the edit window? I just tried it (didn't think of it before), and it works, although it's not as clean or correct as the OCR text we usually get. That's assuming, of course, that you've got an Index page to work from. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
That's only intended for one-off use when a single page is missing text or has a very poor text-layer and not for every page in a work that already has a text-layer. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
But right now, for newly uploaded texts, that's the only option we've got! We can't access the text layer of those works until the software glitch is corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure, but while we wait for Phe and Tpt to get it sorted out we have plenty of other work to be going on with. There are 483172 pages in Not proofread status and another 261503 pages in Proofread status, all just waiting to be loved, rather than creating spurious text-layers that may need to be replaced once the problem is sorted. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The OCR button doesn't affect the embedded text-layer found in the source file regardless of this latest glitch. Its meant to be a "cheat" at best since you are Proofreading your own creation in essance and not the creation of the 3rd party source as intended.

As history as taught us many times before - if you work a file while in a state of error, you might not like the result of your misplaced efforts once the error is resolved. Beewaxcandle is right imo - leave these newly uploaded file(s) alone for now and move on to something that is 100% not affected. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

On a tangent: is the problem worth a Watchlist Announcement? Many users may be encountering this problem without having read this thread. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
If its not resolved by Monday, I would say so. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

An update from Bugzilla:

This patch have been deployed on production cluster. Extraction of text layer works now. I let this bug open because it would be interesting to know why djvutxt use so much memory.

Hopefully this is resolved for now! Andrew Gray (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It may be a few days before we know for certain, but I'm still not reaching the text layer in newly added texts. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like the patch is working. I can now access the text layer. Yay! --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
As per the original post on this directly above - any file that was affected by this bug needs to be manually purged once or twice on the main File: page over on Commons in order to [re]process the file and allow for the automatic text-layer dump to flow through to us. BTW, I took care of the two files Daytrivia mentioned at the outset already. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Different images appearing in view/edit modes[edit]

Hope this is an easy fix, but on Index pp. 574 and 575, different images appear once you go to edit mode. I can fudge it, and type (proofread) what is seen in view mode, but once someone comes along to validate, a "what the..." may resound. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


...for some reason, Index page headers are appearing on the first two pages below (and alignment has been knocked off in the latter two, where it wasn't earlier today):

Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC) they're acting ok... I notice someone is tweaking WS layout... maybe that has something to do with the 'fishy' stuff...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It is an issue now with Epigram and Epilogue (Byron) (which immediately follows Epigram) but not with the above strikeouts. Sorry for all these updates... Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the only time I've seen this happen before was when a DjVu file was uploaded, but then had to be altered, at which time we did a re-upload, though I have the feeling I may have seen it once before besides. In those instances, it was a result of some kind of server caching of the first version of the file, and so you just have to wait for the cache to eventually clear; there's nothing you can do at your end because it's not your computer. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I do think it has something to do with the cache, etc... if not that combined with whatever WS layout tweaking is/was being done (unless that's just a coincidence). I did a "blank save"—or whatever you'd call it—to the first three that were initially problematic, and then they were fine. Tried it with the two new ones, and nothing so far. I'll keep checking/testing. I'm sure it will work itself out. Thanks... Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm finding that the same thing is occurring with several other pages as well (ones that I created some days ago). I'm too tired to figure out what the commonalities between them might be (if any); hopefully some elves will come along tonight and hammer out the discrepancies while this "shoemaker" sleeps. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I looked at On Leaving Newstead Abbey—a page I created end of October. Page looked fine. Just curious to see what would happen if I did a "blank save" (whatever that's called), and that sent the formatting awry, with footnotes appearing—not together at the bottom of the page—but immediately below the Index: page-corresponding text. Index: page running-headers are appearing in the Mainspace seemingly only on the pages where a new section [##s1##, etc.] (poem) is introduced (see as the running header appears here). BTW, the above section ("Different images", etc.) is still an issue. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 7.djvu/97, and I get the correct source image next to the text. What is weird here is the footnote that continues from the previous page. It doesn't appear to be formatted correctly to continue from the previous footnote, but instead is centered text. The same is true of the Newstead Abbey poem; the wrong syntax is used for a continued footnote across two pages. That could be an issue, but again, I'm not seeing the image glitch that you're seeing, and I've now checked using Firefox on a PC and Safari in MacOS X. Everything as far as source images looks fine from my end. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
You have the wrong pages for the image issue (which is a separate issue from the sectioning issue). See pp. 574 and 575. Newstead Abbey et al. now render fine. I think that glitch went away (see here, last comments). My ref-name/ref-follow formatting should be fine; if not, I'm in a heap of trouble! And I'm not seeing the 'centered text' that you're seeing. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Odd, the refs are displaying fine for me now too. FWIW, the p574 & 575 do display differently for me as well in the edit window. This, as I said, was the same phenomenon that turned up after the DjVu for P. G. Wodehouse's Mike was edited to insert missing pages, and re-uploaded. The pages had been created from the original file, and so until the caching issue cleared up, sometimes the old file page was displayed next to the text, even after the Pages were moved to their correct new locations, and should have all matched up. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

How (indeed, should I even try?) to proceed with merged project.[edit]


Currently Hans Andersen's fairy tales (Robinson)/scan is in a very strange state. According to this discussion it is the result of merging pages from an alternate (earlier, 1913) edition where various pages and or images were found to be damaged in the original scan.

This has resulted in such peculiarities as the "Source" tab pointing back to the Index: page for the "patching" (i.e. 1913/Holt, New York) version; irrespective of the fact the bulk of pages are in fact transcluded from the 1917/Constable, London edition.

Note: W. Heath Robinson is cited as the illustrator for both the 1913 & 1917 editions

I suspect the origin of the problem lies in the following style of directive buried within Hans Andersen's fairy tales (Robinson) and elsewhere:

<pages index="Hans Andersen's fairy tales (Robinson).djvu" from=1 to=9 />
<pages index="Hans Andersen's fairy tales (Holt, 1913).djvu" from=11 to=11 />
<pages index="Hans Andersen's fairy tales (Robinson).djvu" from=11 to=19 />

―and would like some advice as to how to influence the "Source" tab's choice (I suspect it might currently be selecting the <pages> choice with the lowest alphabetical sorting rank?)

You can't force one source over the other because (duh) you are only suppose to have one source. The first listed Index in a Pages command line will always rule the source tab. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternately, is this project too muddled to work on further? Please may I have some advice as how to best proceed (if at all?)

I can make one, and only one, DjVu source file to transcribe from as long you verify there isn't a lick of difference from one edition to the other. Otherwise, we are only furthering junk imho. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A special thank-you to Londonjackbooks, for her guidance so far. However, this issue seems to warrant the input of more minds than just we two.

Finally, I believe these issues pre-dated the recent WikiMedia software upgrade discussed elsewhere. MODCHK (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No issue - poor judgement. We should not "mix" editions. Ever. Period. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
There is at least one 'lick of difference': Title page discrepancies (Holt version | Robinson version). I'm actually surprised Cygnis meshed the two works, but I assume he/she had gotten so far into the work before realizing the content was missing and didn't want to completely bail on the project. But I would be assuming, and haven't bothered to fully look at the history/dates of the Indexes/proofreading in chron. order. Not that it would matter. Unless there is a sufficient compromise/solution, my instincts say this project may not hold water after all ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both for at least a clear judgement. Glad at least I raised the matter to gain that education, even if I am otherwise sorry to be involved in the whole boilings. MODCHK (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Whatever. Reasoning with Cy was like clapping with one hand. As is the case more often than not with DjVus created 3 or more years ago on IA - things have changed.

First, please note both DjVus were created in 2007 by IA according the timestamps in folder view there. Second please note that Cy uploaded the 1913, Constable, London version in Aug. 2011 & the 1917, Holt, New York version in Sept. 2011. Now, please go back to the respective folder view for both files on IA - you'll see both source PDFs were replaced in Dec. 2011. This means the current DjVus are not the latest derivatives created from PDF files. I suspect if both Dec. 2011 PDFs were [re]converted to DjVus using today's processing rather than what they 5 years ago, we might actually get a more complete source file that can easily replace the existing flawed one on Commons.

The next course of action would be to a.) request the folks at IA recreate & replace the old 2007 DjVus using the 2011 PDFs (could be just a Myth?); or b.) use to convert the 2011 PDFs ourselves & hope for the best. Follow so far? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for elaborating. It would be MODCHK's call, for my eggs are in a different basket with plenty else to do here. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
My call? I stumbled across all this by accident. No idea about the past baggage whatsoever, and I certainly did not even think of looking outside the Wiki(Source|Commons) bubble. I'll have a look at the Internet Archive files and see what state they are in. Now I am not even sure whose toes I shall be treading on! MODCHK (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Any objective viewer can see the scans for both the 1913 & 1917 editions are flawed when it comes to the color illustrations. The captions are on one page and the illustrations (if they appear at all) are on another page. All 15 or so color illustrations need to be merged with their captioned counterparts at the PDF level and collapsed into one. The redundant "blank" pages then need to be trimmed out as well. A lot of work in short.

Creating these indexes, as sometimes was the case when it came to Cy, was based largely in willful ignorance with the addition of wishful thinking only for the sake of a work he felt better to host flawed than not at all. Well we can get the flawed versions from IA (& elsewhere) anytime and in any flavor so what was the point exactly? This was but one reasoned nuance he never did seem to appreciate nor fully address. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I had been inclined to forgive the coloured-illustrations-divorced-from-captions issue, largely based on a theory advanced by Londonjackbooks wherein she thought the captions may have been printed on translucent overlay leaves adjacent to each illustration. This is backed up by the fact that the scans of the "blank" pages frequently show a dim image of yet another page. I have certainly seen this binding technique, but have no idea what it is called.
In any case, I am inclined to the view that these two have been so scrambled by now it is probably significantly less effort to start again rather than to try to un-mix them again. MODCHK (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
MODCHK: Your call only in that you perhaps have/had more at stake in the project with time spent validating—your call whether you want to continue to pursue the project further (with the new light shed upon the old baggage). And I don't think there are toes to be tread upon here. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the Internet Archive will re-derive files if requested, although I'm not quite sure where to make that request. Once that's done, however, I think all we would have to do is re-upload the new DjVu files over the old ones and fix the transclusions so we have two separate versions in the mainspace as well as the indexspace. The existing proofreading shouldn't be affected as long as the pagination of the scans has not been modified (and, if it has, bulk moves might be all that's needed to fix them).
Well an IA re-derive is certainly the first step but not the full solution. I would work the largely incomplete 1913 version from here on but I don't know if there are any other flaws beside the color image problem. Even if IA re-derives the source-files, all the 'caption, opposing blank, color image and its opposing blank' need to wind up as just as a single color-image w/caption (see Frontspiece) and a single opposing blank at the end of the day. I could trim the 1913 file to match the correct page number and progression right now but we'd lose the text layer. Still, a bulk move of all the text would then be possible, missing image pages would be marked as problematic like we normally would until I/we can create all the fixed image pages to eventually insert into the newly derived DjVu. So yes, it could be done with a group effort over time. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

NB: This has reminded me that the Wikisource:Versions guideline has not been approved yet. I've started a proposal. If anyone has thoughts, please amend the page as necessary or discuss it on the talk page. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Requests for assistance[edit]

Adding a poem[edit]

I'm trying to add Byron's poem "The Corsair" using the text from Project Gutenberg. This is what it looks like right now:The Corsair (Byron). It looks like a mess right now because I haven't fixed the formatting. I was hoping that there is an easier way to fix the formatting rather than going through it line by line. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks! Kerowyn (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

See Help:Editing poetry. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the Project Gutenberg text? I have a 3-vol. set of Byron's Poetical Works (from "A Book Lover's Library of Poetical Literature" in 25 vols. (not sure of publication date, but definitely post-1824); I only own the Byron 3-vol section of the set—vols. 6-8 of complete set). I don't know an easy way to fix formatting, but I can scan the pages from my book for easier side-by-side proofreading... The books are in a precarious way anyway (my old parakeet Edna—named after a poet—chewed up the page edges!) Let me know! AKA Londonjackbooks 22:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC) P.S. "The Corsair" begins Vol. 2 [7] of the set, so copying would be fairly easy! AKA Londonjackbooks 22:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC) ...and it includes a dedication letter "To Thomas Moore, Esq."... AKA Londonjackbooks 22:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not the exact set of books you are talking about, but we have it in a scan at Index:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 3.djvu, at page 249 (217 in original numbering) and does have the dedication letter. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! It'll be interesting to compare the two versions... Any clue what the publication year of my set might be? It is not stated. By the way, at the bottom of some of the pages, it states, e.g., "6—Byron(1)—A", "6—Byron(1)—B", etc... Does the lettering denote sections where the book was bound? Just curious... AKA Londonjackbooks 15:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I think those small letters are something to so with the binding process. You often see them scattered at the bottom of pages, and I assume (but don't know) that they assist with the ordering of the booklets that make up a full book. I have no idea when your set was published, but WorldCat has a record for 1814 (you said post-1824, so it could be a later edition). This is all speculation, I'm afraid. Also, unless it was art intervention, with a poet as a namesake, you would think Edna would know better than to damage books! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think Edna (of the Millay variety) liked me very much... She went through/I put her through an awful lot in her short life. She bit me on the nose once! :) But as far as knowing better than to damage books, she probably learned that nasty habit from me—who didn't/doesn't always know better... Brings to mind a certain book/books, etc. . . . AKA Londonjackbooks 15:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC) An interesting (perhaps) side-note, and very much off-topic, I purchased Edna along with an Emily (of the Dickinson variety)... Edna would never let Emily eat the bird food, and was always pecking at Emily's heels; and one day, Emily just up and died. But I continued to care for Edna despite... AKA Londonjackbooks 16:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Mainspace titling[edit]

Would like to know how I should go about titling for Byron's 7-vol poetry set. I have titled The Corsair thusly: The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero)/The Corsair, but now I am wondering if it should not be The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero)/Volume 3/The Corsair? or some other way? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the way you have it is fine, because the works are distinct and have simply been gathered in the set of books. When there are too many layers to lex it gets quite awkward when doing wikilinks from other works. [For example, I'm having huge problems with linking to some of the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers with up to six levels of sub-paging (Chapter of Book of Work by Author in Volume of Mainspace).] I see volume divisions in a collection like the Byron as being an artefact of the printing and publishing process. That said, there is a counter argument when the volumes are released over several years (usually by subscription) - e.g. A Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"block infobox"[edit]

Sorry if I'm posting this in an inappropriate place but is there anybody interested in helping me here? Thanks in advance. Americophile (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

here is okay. I have answered at the template. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Tried to remove vandalizing comment and affected format[edit]

I tried to remove a vandalizing comment someone added at beginning of the story of Lucia Flucker Knox from The Women of the American Revolution by Elizabeth F. Ellet. When I did so, it removed the wrap from the first paragraph. Sorry, can someone please fix it? Thanks!

There was a space at start of first line. — Phe 21:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Huh? A space? Sorry, I am a busy-body this morning... too much coffee! AKA Londonjackbooks 15:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


See Page:Cricket, by WG Grace.djvu/491. The right hand column italic headings move to the left hand column on tne next and alternate for about 6 pages. Should I make them all with RH headings or keep like the original? My concern is what the transcluded mainspace page will look like. Moondyne (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at A Desk Book on the Etiquette of Social Stationery where we've used alternating sidenotes in the Page namespace, but transcluded them in mainspace as all on the left side. The code for doing this is on Index talk:A Desk Book on the Etiquette of Social Stationary.djvu. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Moondyne (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

One page image not displaying in edit mode[edit]

See Page:Letters of Junius, volume 2 (Woodfall, 1772).djvu/22. Image shows OK until I go to edit mode when it shows as black. All other pages seem OK. Moondyne (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have fixed itself. Thankyou Sonja for validating. Moondyne (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy required[edit]

Can an admin delete Page:Cricket, by WG Grace.djvu/bt please. Created by me in error and am unable to add deletion tag for some reason. Tks. Moondyne (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Need help creating a Wikisource Index page[edit]

I uploaded a .djvu file of a public domain story to Commons at That seems to be OK. Then I tried creating an Index page for it originally using for reference and then some other help pages plus looking at some already uploaded and indexed files. Things didn't go quite as I expected from the Beginner's guide but I got something and tweaked it a bit until some things appeared correct in their fields and linked to what they were supposed to link to (or so I thought anyway)though I never seemed to get all things right. My impression was that what I was doing per the Beginner's guide would create the Wikisource page and it seemed to create a page in Wikisource but every time I saved it I got error messages about the page not existing. Maybe there are more pages involved than I realized. Anyway, I probably have a page of some sort created on Wikisource though I've lost track of it so can't delete it or keep trying to get it right. Basically, I may need to delete something I'm not able to relocate right now or I may just need to make some changes to get it right if it does exist BUT what I mostly need is something like a walk-through creating the Wikisource Index page so I learn how to do it correctly for this and future uploads. I'm just finding this confusing and frustrating although the guide indicates it should be a pretty straightforward process. Help would be much appreciated. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your issue was having the word "File" in your Index page title. I moved page Index:File:Small Town.djvu (your original title) to Index:Small Town.djvu. An admin might wish to delete the original erroneously titled Page... I'll take your word about the story being in the public domain, as I'm not familiar with all that... Hope this helps! AKA Londonjackbooks 16:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Knowing that "File:" shouldn't have been in the Index page title should be very helpful. Index:File:Small Town.djvu was probably not my original title, I made a lot of edits throughout the process that don't show because I canceled them in Preview. I've looked at the history to see what was done to fix it and that helps me learn also. The accuracy of the public domain status is my responsibility but I wish to assure you I researched everything very carefully and that I would not attempt to sneak anything in that wasn't public domain or that I wasn't certain about even if I didn't think it would be noticed. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the help page a little for clarity (especially a new message box to cover the page names in a nutshell). There are a few more bits and pieces I could do, so I'll come back to this later, but the basics should be clearer now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for working on the help page. I've not looked at the changes yet but I appreciate you working to be helpful and improve things. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem with an article[edit]

Hi, I'm an editor and admin. While reviewing and editing a page on ([21]) I came here to look at what was indicated was the wikisource copy of that document, Report of Van Fleet mission to the Far East). However, after looking at it, I became confused...and realized that the document is not what it claims to be. Rather, it is only an excerpt of that report. Note the "Contents" section which shows 18 sections in the original document, then note the rest of the information--it covers only 1 section of that article (section 13). Why? Well, because that section is a reference cited by the Korean government in making arguments relating to a territorial dispute. Now, I don't know anything about Wikisource's procedures, or inclusion criteria, but this concerns me. First, if the article is kept the way it is, can it some way be re-labeled as an excerpt? Second, I'm concerned about the accuracy of the information--given that it was copied (I am fairly certain) only for the purposes of advancing this specific argument, I'm worried that 1) other parts of the document may have conflicting information, and 2) I'm not even comfortable extending AGF ( policy) to what is there being accurately copied. Within the confines of Wikisource's policy, what is the appropriate procedure? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a poor quality text: incomplete with no source (and certainly not proofread). It could be tagged as {{incomplete}}. The best option would be to complete the text, preferably with a DjVu or PDF as reference, but unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a complete version online. However, excerpts have been deleted before. So, I will take it there for more opinions. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the assistance; I'll watch that discussion and see what happens. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Issues with original translations[edit]

About two years ago, I added some original translations to Wikisource of short classical Buddhist texts (e.g. Saṃyuktāgama 34: Five Bhikṣus, etc.). However, these were never regarded as "Wikisource translations," and the status of them was unclear at that time for myself and others (I also posted here at that time inquiring about the situation). Over the course of two years, I have seen that this situation may be problematic, as I have tended to update the translations frequently according to my own research, whereas Wikisource is mostly used for static content. It does not seem that Wikisource is equipped to handle this type of original public domain work. In retrospect, I think it would be best if these translations were completely removed, but I am not sure what the best method of doing that is. Any help would be appreciated. lapislazulitexts (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue of WS translations is a matter of some debate, but a weak consensus exists that if an English translation is not available elsewhere, they are positive contributions to the WS library. I would personally recommend, rather than deletion, adding the orignial Chinese(?) to the page, thus providing some level of verifiability to the translation. A side-by side paragraph setup can be achieved with wiki tables, as follows:
| Paragraph 1 - Eng
| Paragraph 1 - Orig
| Paragraph 2 - Eng
| Paragraph 2 - Orig

--Eliyak T·C 01:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Problematic template[edit]

{{Author}} For some reason, the documentation of this correctly uses an ndash to refer to date ranges (cf. w:WP:DASH), but in the instance of Author:Richard Lugar incorrectly uses an mdash. I would edit this myself, but it's protected. Please fix this malfuction--it should be straight-forward. Thanks. Koavf (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume the point of that was to easier differentiate between no fixed date range (i.e. Mr. Lugar is still among the living; no death year yet so a date range is not appropriate even though technically it is an unknown) vs. an unknown specific year of death but it is safe to assume (a ~100 year gap from birth-date) his or her death has indeed taken place (i.e. indicated by a question mark so a date range applies even though technically that is also an unknown - just not for the same reason as the previous instance).
I have no problem changing it, however, if my assumption here is shown to be invalid by other folks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Simple solution At the risk of being pedantic or condescending, just make it so that if the death field is empty it reads "[YEAR]–present" (with an ndash)--that will fix the problem, right? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Also It would be advisable to add a alt field for alternative text (cf. W3C standards and w:WP:ALT.) —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


Anyone have any ideas about formatting diagrams like the following: Page:Native_Tribes_of_South-East_Australia.djvu/197? Just thought I'd ask before I admit defeat and scan it as a pic...Misarxist (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You could play with {{Familytree}}. I used it on Page:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 1.djvu/121 and elected to use the default boxes, but the borders can be removed. I'm not sure how to replicate the arrows in your diagram though. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe adding arrows together with text?--Mpaa (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thx, just what I wanted. Any idea how I center the one I've done on this page Page:Native Tribes of South-East Australia.djvu/317? (The arrows from 'special characters' seem to work well enough on one I did in a table.)Misarxist (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

added margin: 0.5em auto 0.5em auto; to the CSS stylings and it seems to have done the trick. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status of speeches by Irish politicians[edit]

I have added speeches by the Irish Taoiseach (prime minister) to Wikisource in the past. Before I added them, I wrote to the Oireachtas (Irish parliament) to inquire about copyright status of such speeches and received the reply that "As the Oireachtas debates are a matter of public record there is no copyright attached to them." After that, I added speeches by the Irish President, too, on the same basis (being a matter of public record in Ireland). These latter speeches were deleted without warning as alleged copyright violations some weeks ago.

Since then, I wrote to Áras an Uachtaráin (the Irish President's home and workplace, equivalent to the White House in the United States) to inquire about the copyright status of his speeches and today I received a reply saying, "You are correct in assuming that the President's speeches and remarks are a matter of public record and as such are copyright free." In fact, the Communications Manager of Áras an Uachtaráin continued, "I appreciate the work you are doing in bringing the President's speeches to a wider audience."

I want to do two things here: I want to re-upload the speeches by the President that were deleted but, more importantly, I want to begin the process of altering the erroneous Wikisource policy that is hostile to such speeches as I have uploaded. I want to submit my e-mail correspondence to Wikisource as a matter of record and to find out what else is necessary to cause a rewrite of Wikisource policy to prevent future deletions. Please advise me how to proceed. O'Dea (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any response from OTRS, or specific details to back up the lack of copyright (an Act of the Oireachtas, for example)? If so, we could update {{PD-IrishGov}}. The licence could be wrong but we need more information before changing it. On top of simple proof, we need to know about any specific date ranges or a possible list of inclusions or exclusions. We then need to be able to point to something that either backs this up or establishes that we have checked and confirmed this in some way. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Once the copyright status has been confirmed, you will not need to upload the works again. They can be "un-deleted". A discussion listing all the deleted works should be started at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
For reference, the speeches in question have been userfied:
  1. Michael D. Higgins' Inaugural Address
  2. Of Public Intellectuals, Universities, and a Democratic Crisis
  3. The Role of the University at a time of Intellectual Crisis
(They will still require the process described by JeepdaySock to return to the mainspace once the licensing has been resolved.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, yes, the OTRS! I could not remember that term when I left my question here earlier. I sent a question to OTRS (I have forgetten how, so I could not contact them again, which is why I came here) back in March or April, or I sent them a copy of my original e-mail from the Oireachtas last year (by now I have forgotten what I sent them, too) – but whatever, I got no response from OTRS acknowledging my statement about having proof of copyright-free status. The evidence I have is my e-mail correspondence; that contains e-mail addresses and the names of specific individuals that Wikisource can contact independently to verify my claims. I don't want to just edit {{PD-IrishGov}} myelf or I will be laughed at. Someone with appropriate authority needs to see my e-mails and follow up with independent verification. I just want to know who to send them to, and how. O'Dea (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
OTRS is the place to go with that but I can't tell you what happend as it's a restricted system. Even if you forwarded your correspondance to someone else, they would still need to go through OTRS to officially confirm the licence. It might make this a little easier if you could copy and paste the e-mails (with personal details blanked) into a subpage of your userpage (like the current locations of the speeches). This will at least make it easier for other Wikisource users to understand the issue and maybe find the problem.
I can see that part of the problem is that the Áras an Uachtaráin website seems to be asserting a copyright on these speeches (see the footer of their copy of Michael D. Higgins' Inaugural Address for example). In the United States, the White House solves this problem with an explicit Creative Commons licence, which would resolve our present problem without the need for more e-mails if we can't solve it some other way. Another part of this problem is that everything I've found so far about Irish copyright law appears to assert a 50-year copyright term for Government works (for example, Wikipedia) and I have not found anything else that states this is waived for Presidential speeches. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I can second those findings. I've been up and down the 2000 Act, the 2004 & 2007 Amendments, even the EU related tangents, and can't find anything that remotely deviates from the "50 years from creation" rule in general or that specifically excludes / includes the Irish President from being just another "regular" government employee in the eyes of the law. I am also unable to locate any nuance in the statutes that defines "[matter of] public record" that could help separate Presidential speeches or remarks from classic Presidential works such as secondary or statutory instruments (think Executive Orders here), which most certainly seem to fall under the same 50 year caveat as the other Irish legislative products do.

Adam is right that the easiest solution would be to for the office of the Irish President to incorporate a CC by 3.0 license to cover any remaining "non-classic" works created such as speeches or remarks. The next best solution would be for a similar response as the one given by a government official that actually cites the statute(s) that supports the 'matter of public record' assertion. Without one, it would be hard to defend against any future questions on the matter since the law seems to favor, at least to the layman, the 50 year inclusion rather than exclusion from copyright protection. Finally, and in the absence of the prior two solutions, there might be a possibility to justify hosting these works on an Irish Constitutional mandate basis. If a line can be drawn from the work connecting to something akin to a constitutional mandate as a basis in or a basis for creating some work was induced as part of carrying out the President's sworn oath, then it may be possible to justify a state of public record exists without being specifically defined; allowing for the hosting of such works. The last option becomes problematic however because some speeches are policy driven while others may be political or horatory in nature and thus still not be justified for hosting using the Constitutional mandate argument. I haven't checked the Irish Constitution for such language but assume something like like that is in there based on what I've read on the IE webpage. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I have place an anonymised copy of my correspondence with Irish officials here: User:O'Dea/Irish copyright. I discovered that I sent e-mail to OTRS in March, or to (is that the same thing?) but I received no reply. That e-mail is also included at User:O'Dea/Irish copyright. O'Dea (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Did the OTRS on these get completed? If copyright has not been validated as appropriate for WS the userfied pages should be deleted. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, the OTRS process was completed (ticket 2012032510004135) and User:Prosfilaes restored the userfied pages. Case closed. Thank you to OTRS for helping with this process. O'Dea (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding URL and adding author page[edit]

I created Mega-Schools, Technology and Teachers: Achieving Education for All Book Review, but I don't know where or how to post the URL. I also can't find how to create an author page. I just posted the source on the talk page. SL93 (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The website lists the Commons 3.0 Attribution Unported License, but elsewhere the site says "IRRODL retains the exclusive right for commercial publication and distribution." That makes no sense so better to tag it for deletion. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - it is deleted. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

template:hanging indent/s[edit]

I'm proofing an index in which the hanging indexes span the page breaks, but when I try to use the /s and /e notation, nothing appears on either page - at least on the Page. Is this normal? Chris55 (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed using hanging indent start, middle and end. See on the template page. - Digipoke (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't read the documentation carefully enough!! Chris55 (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
There is also {{hii}} which has an inherit function, and is designed to be open/close. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Match & Split[edit]

I'm attempting to use this tool and it got through 1 page before reporting "no match". I fixed it as far as I could follow the instructions, but this time the "MATCH" link isn't a link. Can anyone help? The page is The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night/Volume 3. Chris55 (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You were missing a ":" after the MATCH code. I am going through the book now. It seems to be getting stuck on footnotes. --Eliyak T·C 18:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I have finished the matching. You will want to place the footnotes in their proper spots before splitting. --Eliyak T·C 18:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, there are only 400 of them!! But thanks very much. Chris55 (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Having thought about it, it isn't such a big deal as I already have a script for restoring Gutenberg-style footnotes. But what is a problem is that on every page the match routine has transferred one word to the previous page. Is this a known bug? How do I even find out where the code for this is and how issues are reported? Chris55 (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
This work isn't an appropriate candidate for "Match and Split" to the particular Index file. We don't know what the source of original text is. Specifically, we don't know that these the same edition from the same publisher in the same year and city.

With respect to the words slipping backwards across pages, it mostly happens when there are hyphenated words. I suspect in this case, because the footnotes had not been "wikified" the process got confused with these. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite sure the source of the text on the page is the Gutenberg transcription of 1001 nights and that in turn is based on the private edition of Burton's work, not the later Smithers version. I don't know whether it's the Shammar or Bassoreh or another of Burton's printings or whether there are significant differences between them but I don't think this is the cause of the problems. The index file I loaded is the Bassoreh.
There are no hyphenations on most of the pages. I could certainly wikify the references first and try again but the material would still not be at the foot of the pages so the comparison with text from the scanned pages would still have problems. I'm impressed with the match routine—it seems pretty stable. But looking at the first 10 pages of real text (index 17+) only 6 have footnotes but the same error has occurred on 9 of them and continues on the other pages. Chris55 (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

section transcluding[edit]

What am I doing wrong? When I have 2 sections on a page, then the second section shows a two line break at the next page break. An example is at The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night/Volume 3/1. I've tried with and without a section end at the end of the page (and even in the footer) and it has the same effect. Chris55 (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

onlysection should only be used when your from & to page numbers are the same. Otherwise you'll need to use fromsection &/or tosection in those instances where more than one page makes up the from and to range. Follow? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Got it, as always I didn't read far enough in the documentation... Thanks. Chris55 (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Gaelic font[edit]

I'm working on a page in Notes & Queries (Series 2, Volume 11, p. 36 [50]), which has Gaelic script. The options I can think of are:

  1. Type it in latin letters and use css with a list of known Gaelic fonts.
  2. Crop the specific words from the source image and add them as pictures to the page.
  3. Make my own SVG image for each word using as accurate a font as possible.
  4. Make a template that could do the preferred above option, and would allow future editors to overcome the same problem, and even if not perfect at the moment, would be future-proof.

Can anyone give me advice on the best way to tackle the problem? Xensyria (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You bring up my past frustrations - I created a template to do just that, using a font with and permission from its author. Sadly, the OTRS process seems to have failed, and the "right people" never got confirmation of release under the creative commons license. This means all the files I uploaded were deleted! <insert nasty language here>. The best I can offer is my prototype - {{Insular}}, which is not really gaelic and is a bit messy. --Eliyak T·C 02:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there a Gaelic/Celtic web font available in open source? I believe that we can look to have a bugzilla request to have it loaded. See mw:Help:Extension:WebFontsbillinghurst sDrewth 10:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah! I didn't know about web fonts; I've emailed a font author and the owner of the best Gaelic font website, and will look into the bugzilla request process if successful (I may have a go making a font if not). Thanks Xensyria (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, your {{Insular}} template will work for now. Could you also link the OTRS discussion? I'd be interested to know on what grounds they threw it out (though it sounds depressingly like the worst parts of Wikipedia). Xensyria (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no discussion, as far as I know. I followed the procedure at commons:Commons:Permission, forwarding the creator's email reply to on Jan 15, but on Mar 9, commons:User:Fastily deleted the files without any notice I can find. I didn't realize they were gone until much later. --Eliyak T·C 03:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you have contact information for the OTRS request? You should have received a ticket number, still have it? Alternatively, what were the pages at Commons, and did they have OTRS pending marked upon them? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I did not get any response to my email to Having never done this before, I didn't know to expect one. The files were all named Gaelic-a.svg, Gaelic-b.svg, etc. The deletions can be seen at the middle of this page: [22]. I am fairly certain I had attached an OTRS pending tag to all of them. --Eliyak T·C 14:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
For the record, the font I originally identified and SVG'd is Gadelica. It was originally available under a non-commercial license, but the creator (Séamas Ó Brógáin) agreed to release my SVG derivatives under CC-BY-SA. --Eliyak T·C 15:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
By chance he was the font author I emailed earlier today, and he has said that he's also willing for anyone to use it as a webfont, as long as it's done in compliance with the non-commercial license you mentioned, and the font remains unchanged. Is this enough for our purposes? If not we could ask him whether he would be willing to release a version of the font licensed to allow these things specifically. --xensyriaT 23:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Font request added to Bugzilla. Fingers crossed. --xensyriaT 00:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like the request failed "Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX " JeepdaySock (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
At least it only failed due to the licencing of the source, rather than no interest. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm pleasantly surprised at the interest in this, and no matter how annoying it may be to get this off the ground, the open licensing of the font is important (especially if we have to modify the fonts to suit our purposes). I've emailed the author of Gadelica again asking if he would be willing to release the font with an open license, and have also had a very thorough reply from the author of and on his recommendations have emailed the author of over twenty Gaelic fonts. He has also suggested certain guidelines for how best to transcribe Gaelic script (and what to avoid); I'll post them here if he gives the go-ahead. --xensyriaT 15:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC) EDIT: 15:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's the guideline text from Ciarán Ó Duibhín, the author of :

It seems to me that, by adopting existing Gaelic fonts, WITHOUT EXTRA GUIDELINES, WikiSource will take over and institutionalise a problem for the users of most such fonts, in that text processing procedures (such as Google search) will give undesirable results. With extra guidelines governing the adoption of Gaelic fonts by WikiSource, the problem could be avoided.

The problem arises because four Gaelic glyphs have been elevated to the status of separate characters in Unicode. They are:

 Unicode $017F: Latin small letter long s               which should be encoded instead as $0073: Latin small letter s
         $027C: Latin small letter r with long leg                                         $0072: Latin small letter r
         $1E9B: Latin small letter long s with dot above                                   $1E61: Latin small letter s with dot above
         $204A: Tironian sign et                                                           $0026: ampersand

If the "characters" on the left are used in encoding Gaelic script text, they will not be recognised as glyph variants of the corresponding character on the right, as they should be for correct searching, sorting, or other processing.

The first part of the guideline is: do not use Unicode characters $017F, $027C, $1E9B or $204A in encoding text in Gaelic script. Use instead the corresponding character on the right above to ensure correct processing. Only one glyph for each character can be displayed in the font; the glyph displayed should be whichever of the pair is historically appropriate for the face. The glyphs presently held at in a font at $017F/$027C/$1E9B/$204A might be simply discouraged from use, or actually disabled.

The guideline is also concerned with choosing the four appropriate glyphs, between two possibilities in each case, to display for a given face. Out of 16 possible selections, there are actually only three which are realistically useful. Faces for which all four appropriate glyphs are those in the right-hand column above are already compatible, but this is the case only of a few unusual faces. For the great majority of Gaelic faces, the Tironian sign et is appropriate rather than a Roman-like ampersand glyph; after that the other three glyphs may be either all short (new) or all long (old). For a small number of faces, short and long choices are equally valid, and for these few, two separate fonts are necessary to provide the choice (unless an OpenType feature can be used to switch between the valid selections within a single inclusive font for the face).

The second part of the guideline is that one of these three glyph selections should be made in a compliant Gaelic font:

Selection A: $0073: Latin small letter s
             $0072: Latin small letter r
             $1E61: Latin small letter s with dot above
             $0026: ampersand
Selection B: $0073: Latin small letter s
             $0072: Latin small letter r
             $1E61: Latin small letter s with dot above
             $0026: Tironian sign et

Selection C: $0073: Latin small letter long s
             $0072: Latin small letter r with long leg
             $1E61: Latin small letter long s with dot above
             $0026: Tironian sign et

Many fonts already comply with selection A, though selection A would be appropriate for only a few of them. Gadelica ( complies with selection C. But in general it may be necessary for WikiSource to ask Gaelic font designers to provide variations on their fonts in order to comply with a selection according to this second guideline. The reason that few Gaelic fonts comply with selections B or C is that almost all of them place an ampersand glyph in $0026, in the probable belief that this is required by adherence to Unicode — which requires an ampersand character, but not any particular glyph.

Would it be ok to make a Wikisource namespace page for these guidelines (perhaps Wikisource:Dealing with Gaelic type or just Wikisource:Gaelic type, but suggestions for a better name would be welcome), which would also provide an overview of what to do when encountering the font, including the current use of {{gaelic}})?
As for free fonts, having emailed the authors of Gadelica and the Gaelchló fonts, it seems both want to retain creative control over their fonts, and would not be willing to release their fonts under the open licenses we require. I may try to make a basic Gaelic font to suit our needs unless someone who knows what they're doing with font design can help. --xensyriaT 10:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC) EDIT: 11:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • As someone who unfamiliar with webfonts, can some one explain what exactly is the licensing concern here? Is there some kind of source code that make webfonts work that is not freely (enough) licensed? Or are you all talking about the licensing of the design of the letters? Because as far as I am aware typefaces are firmly recognized as uncopyrightable.--BirgitteSB 01:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
After a little research, it seems that things are complicated: Typefaces is not copyrightable. However, the information which is used to display a typeface as a scalable font is copyrightable. This is the information included in a font file. See w:Intellectual property protection of typefaces. --Eliyak T·C 03:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a little nuance there that I want to clarify. It is not that scalable fonts are copyrighted but rather the computer program which scales a font that is copyrighted. The article you linked to mentioned the EU has an automatic design patent on typeface which expires after three years unless registered. It shouldn't be to hard to find a typeface older than three years, check that it is unregistered and then write our own source code to use the design (or probably re-work some source code that is completely free to handle Gaelic.) Then we will be certain to be aboveboard in both the US and EU.--BirgitteSB 12:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Oddity with 2 quotes[edit]

Can someone explain why these three versions of a sentence appear differently, even though they should be the same?

"But it is clear that 'A believes that p, 'A thinks p,' 'A says p are of the form p says p";

"But it is clear that 'A believes that p', 'A thinks p, 'A says p are of the form p says p";

"But it is clear that 'A believes that p,' 'A thinks p,' 'A says p' are of the form p says p";

The last is what is intended. (You need to look at the wikitext.) Chris55 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the bold and italics markers are getting mixed up. Looking at what the computer sees when it interprets the wikitext we get:
"But it is clear that 'A believes that [start italics]p[start bold], 'A thinks [end italics]p[start italics],' 'A says [end italics]p[end bold] are of the form [start italics]p[end italics] says [start italics]p[end italics]";
"But it is clear that 'A believes that [start italics]p'[end italics], 'A thinks [start italics]p[start bold], 'A says [end italics]p[end bold] are of the form [start italics]p[end italics] says [start italics]p[end italics]";
(I think the first triple-apostrophe does not get interpreted as bold because there are an odd number of triple-apostrophes in the sentence.)
"But it is clear that 'A believes that [start italics]p[end italics],' 'A thinks [start italics]p[end italics],' 'A says [start italics]p'[end italics] are of the form [start italics]p[end italics] says [start italics]p[end italics]";
If you need to put an apostrophe next to bold or italic text, I would suggest either HTML or <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags around the apostrophe. I've used both in the past. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
See also {{'}} --Eliyak T·C 19:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thanks, I wasn't thinking of the first 3 being opening but it's obvious that it can match that way. I've only recently realised the markers only apply within a paragraph and this therefore governs the interpretation. Chris55 (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Help with diagram[edit]

I need help with a simple line diagram: I've seen similar in Wikitext but I can't find any documentation. Can anyone point me to it? The page is here but please don't just do it for me, I'd like to learn! Chris55 (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

For this I would recommend {{familytree}}. Or {{chart2}} may be better. --Eliyak T·C 15:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Help with anti-slavery letters[edit]

Hi, could someone help out by creating a good quality djvu file from Commons:Category:Letter from Anne Warren Weston to Caroline Weston; Monday, August 7, 1837? I have had great difficulty using open source tools to do this on my Mac, I invariably get low resolution files. If you could kick this off by setting up the letter as a book on WS, I would be happy to do the transcription and hopefully this could be a basis for some of the other letters from the several hundred I have uploaded to Commons. Cheers -- (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done at File:Letter from Anne Warren Weston to Caroline Weston; Monday, August 7, 1837.djvu. pyGrabber is a tool I wrote for this kind of thing (and the one I just used), but it doesn't work nicely on Macs, unfortunately, since a lot of the software it uses isn't available for Macs. I am happy to help in future, though. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph numbering[edit]

I want to run paragraph numbers outside the margin of the text on the left hand side. I've seen a template somewhere but I can't remember its name. Note that not every paragraph has a number. Chris55 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

{{Overfloat left}}? --xensyriaT 21:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that certainly goes somewhere to what I wanted: but I don't want it outside the margin of the page - how do I then move the text to the right to make way for the numbers? Chris55 (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

A link to the page so we could see exactly what you need would help. You could try {{Sidenotes begin}} and {{Sidenotes end}} with {{Outside L}} and {{Outside R}}. Would look like this. - Digipoke (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, a page link would be helpful. Also note that you can play around with with "depth=" parameter on {{Overfloat left}}. --xensyriaT 23:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry here's a typical example. Chris55 (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I would do this with sidenotes. {{sidenotes begin}} in page header, {{sidenotes end}} in page footer & {{left sidenote|text}} at the beginning of relevant paragraphs. The dynamic layouts deal with the sidenotes automatically, so there's nothing special to do in mainspace. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they seem to work very well on the Page. I'm not so sure about the mainspace yet. The example from the template doc: The Solar System/Chapter 1 is a mess. Not only are they not outside the columns but the left/right thing just doesn't transfer from Page to Main. Chris55 (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Use {{Outside L}} and {{Outside R}}. Example English Caricaturists. - Digipoke (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem with the Solar System example is that it uses a mixture of {{left sidenote}} and {{right sidenote}}. {{RL sidenote}} has been developed to display right in Page and left in Main. Sidenotes is one of the rare times when Dynamic Layout 2 looks alright. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The Solar System/Chapter 1 at first glance it appears the side notes in the print book are set on alternating pages, at whatever happens to be the outside edge of the paper for each sub section. Keeping in mind that we are not a trying to recreate the print format, you get two different options that will make the web version look better, put all the side notes to one side or the other. Or use the side notes as sub sections of the chapter using == "side note" ==. Jeepday (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Original translation?[edit]

The page Index:Das Relativitätsprinzip und seine Anwendung.djvu has a German original for an English translation. But there is no indication of the source of the translation. It might be from this or this in which case the translation is probably still in copyright. Any ideas? Chris55 (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh? It says translated by wikisource on the mainpage header and has a CC 3.0 Share-Alike license attached to it... where are you looking? -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks George. Didn't look that far. I still wonder... Chris55 (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Self-Realization Articles of Incorporation 1935[edit]

I uploaded the file above onto Wikisource for the first time. (1) I uploaded my file with a name that needed to be corrected so I corrected the name on my computer and uploaded it again. So the old file needs to be deleted but I don't know how to do that - it is called 1935 Articles of Incorporation (2) I placed a link to Wikisource on the Paramahansa Yogananda page under Legacy but it is not working. What did I do wrong? Thank you! Red Rose 13 (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

  1. Yes check.svg Done The duplicate file with the wrong name has been deleted
  2. Don't quite follow you... what is it you were/are trying to do? Transcribe the work to the mainspace?
-- George Orwell III (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you George Orwell III for you quick help! I thought I did everything right regarding uploading onto Wikisource and adding the Wikisource document to a page. I tried to add this document to page under the Legacy section. You can see the Wikisource box there. When you click on the box it goes to this page. saying that the file is not on Wikisource. Not sure what I did wrong. Thank you again! Red Rose 13 (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You may be misunderstanding the point of Wikisource. We take copyright-free old scans, proof-read them using simple text against those scans per page and then transcribe all the proofread text into a single mainspace article for easier reading. You can then link to that article (which is what is happening on Wikipedia except there is no transcription here on en.WS).
If you just want to store a file for posterity and be able to link to it, you should upload it to Commons instead. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. I think both are a good idea. It seems all I need to do is retype the document onto Wikisource for easier reading, correct? Thank you again! Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

superimposing arrows[edit]

I'm having difficulty putting arrows on this diagram. I thought to start with but it disappeared under the image and I couldn't see how to bring it up. Also I don't know how to enlarge it for the lower example as tex commands such as \big don't seem to be supported. Any ideas? Chris55 (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fixed this by simply adding to the picture. Chris55 (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

non-included pages[edit]

I've marked an index page as "All pages of the work proper are proofread" but there will still be 90 pages recorded as missing in the statistics. This is quite proper as it's a bilingual work and we're only transcribing the English part (and there are 8 pages of ads). But it seems untidy. I could mark them as "no text" though it's not strictly true. Alternatively, is there is some way of marking alternate pages using pagelist? Chris55 (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The following was done in a similar case: Wikisource:Bot_requests#Index:The_Oxford_book_of_Italian_verse.djvu.--Mpaa (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try it. Chris55 (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

_note_ notation[edit]

In reviewing some unfinished proofreading tasks I came across the string "Ladd, 58 _note_[14]" which corresponded to a text of "Ladd, 58 n." in the file Index:Mind and the Brain (1907).djvu p278. It would appear to be designed for some addition to markup scheme for references but I couldn't find any mention of it anywhere. Anyone know anything about it? Chris55 (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone (I think Phe) has a tool that creates indices with clickable links. Because we don't associate notes with print-pages in the mainspace the link still has to work. I presume that this is the reason for the specific mark-up. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't follow up that particular suggestion, but I've realised that actually it comes from the Gutenberg proofreading process. Although this page doesn't explicitly show the code that is used in the transformation to html, looking at the finished product of this book on Gutenberg shows that the notation came from there. Though their process is different to Wikisource it looks as if it's equivalent to Phe's tool - it would be nice to know where that is. Chris55 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Back cover image[edit]

In Page:Cihm 08810.djvu/11, the final cover has been marked as a problem because it has an image. I'm not sure whether this is significant or not: it could be equivalent to the first 4 pages which had not been proofread but had simply library marks or it might be a trademark or whatever. Any ideas? Chris55 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be part of the work itself. I would guess it is the same as the first page, a test image to align the scan. If so, mark it as without text. (In my opinion, some pictorial covers should be uploaded as images and transcluded to the mainspace, but I don't think it applies in this case). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Chris55 (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete non-OCR djvu indices[edit]

Sorry, I got carried away and uploaded a bunch of bad files. Please delete what I have done, as I work to correct the files. I created about 31 "volumes" starting at Index:The Urantia Book, 1st Edition (1600dpi), Front pages and paper titles.djvu. Thank you. Xaxafrad (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are generating the text-layer as suggested here and re-upload the djvu files with text layers at commons, I believe (someone corrects me if I am wrong, pls) that then the text layer should be visible in this indexes and we do not need to delete and re-create them. If instead you want to go for another strategy with a smaller number of files and you want to delete these, that’s another story. Pls just confirm which way you want to move on. Bye--Mpaa (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC) looks like someone already acted … --Mpaa (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
uhhh, did you delete those indices to the non-OCR djvus already? I think you did, but I'm not sure. Thanks, if you did. ;)
Otherwise...what was your question? ....yes, we found a sufficiently small file (only 1!) and are going with the other story. Xaxafrad (talk) 07:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


I uploaded [23] from but later found a better file at archive. Do I somehow delete the current book and upload the better one? Daytrivia (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

For starters, you should always try to rename the file to something more descriptive when upload stuff from IA or GoogleBooks. Something like Life of William Hickling Prescott (1864).djvu would do.
You should probably upload the desired file fresh to Commons using an appropriate file name and create a matching new Index: here on Wikisource. We can then move any existing pages already created before deleting the old Index: page linked above. You should also request a deletion of the old file on Commons independent of whatever we do here on en.WS. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I tried to rename the file but it wouldn't let me. Thanks for the information. I'll see what I can do. Daytrivia (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Generally you would request such at Commons with the {{rename}} template, though usually before you put a load of effort into proofreading the pages, as moving Page: ns pages is a PITA. You can always prod me here or at Commons if you want it hurried along. Others here are admins there, or have the 'move' bit. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I have added [24] and would like to get rid of the version mentioned at the beginning of this post. Thanks. Daytrivia (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, the bulk of the Page: ns, and moved those with text. Deleted the Index: page here, and the file at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Outstanding! Thank you. Daytrivia (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Petition from the King of Rurutu and the Queen of Rimatara and their nobles to Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria, and to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom[edit]

Can somebody help create this document?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

November 27, 1888: Petition from the King of Rurutu and the Queen of Rimatara and their nobles to Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria, and to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. May you have good health. We, Teuruarii, King of Rurutu and Te Maere, Queen of Rimatara and our nobles, ask for the Prime Minister to place our islands and our ships under the protection of the British flag. These are the islands, namely, Rurutu, Rimatara, and Marià, and there are the names of the ships: Faaito and Ronui, and the masters of the same are natives. This is our word to you: Do not forsake us; we are your children; you taught us the word of God, and that has led us in the path of civilisation; therefore we know that you are a good parent to us. The thoughts of the children cling fondly to their good parent; they do not wish to be separated from their good parent. If the parent forsake the children, the children will seek the parent; so do we; we are like those children, and we ask that you will give us your flag to protect us. We have heard that you have taken Rarotonga and the neighbouring islands under your protection, but we remain without anyone to protect us. When we received the news that Rarotonga and the neighbouring islands were placed under your protection, we wept aloud because we were forsaken by you; we were afraid lest we should be adopted by another paretn. The strange parent we mean is the French. They did not feed us with the milk of the gospel, but you did. O Great Britain; you fed us with that milk which has given life to us. This is our last word to you; we do no wish for French annexation or protection, not al all, but we wish you to be our parent, O Great Britain. We pray you now to accede to this our request. This letter was written in the house of Queen Pa. -TEURUARII, TE MAERE ARII.

This is a bit unconventional for Wikisource, but not, I think outside its remit. If the digitization you link to (or another you can find) is freely licensed then upload it to Commons and then follow the instructions for adding new texts. If it isn't freely licensed and you can't find a free alternative, then you can still add the text, since it's public domain (making sure you link to the source on the talk page), but the first way is preferred. If there's something you don't know how to do (and there are bound to be lots of things if you're new) then try to find out how to do it using the (very good) Help pages first, and we should be able to help if you come across any specific problems; I know I'd be happy to. --xensyriaT 05:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded. Will set you up for the text here soon. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, both pages are linked above in situ ready to be proofread. Once these are done, give us a hoy and we can transclude them to the main namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
It is just the petition not the entire newspaper article. I only place the link to show you guys the source of it. I meant something like the Olive Branch Petition. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Check out the source of the Olive Branch Petition; it's taken from three pages of a larger source (in this case a book). Once (either of) the sources you give have been proofread we can transclude just the petition into the mainspace, like the Olive Branch Petition. --xensyriaT 16:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC) EDIT: 17:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Proofread the section that you would like to see transcluded, and just leave an html remark field <!-- proofread to here --> and we can add some setions and transclude it appropriately. We generally don't excerpts, hence why I did the whole news article. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I've added it to only Page:England and the Islands.gif. But Page:News, West Coast Times, Tuesday January 8, 1889.gif has the line "and to the Prime Minister" rather than "and to a Prime Minister. Also can someone help me add

like the Olive Branch Petition.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Jump right in and give the actual proofreading a go too – once you have I'll do the second round of proofreading (confirmation). The textual difference comes from using slightly unreliable sources (newspapers are notoriously inaccurate in details); unless there's a more reliable source which backs up one or the other I suggest proofreading both articles so that readers can compare the differences (and it's not all that much more work). As for the two new sources, since they're in French they can be added to the French WikiSource (does uploading pictures to Commons first automatically provide a text layer for the Page namespace?). --xensyriaT 19:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I proofread both articles. For the four French proces-verbals where can I get a person to help me with that on the French WikiSource. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
There are actually quite a few differences:
  • 1889 lacks the preface ("November 27" to "May you have good health") of the 1888 version
  • 1888: "We, Teuruarii, King of Ruruta"; 1889: "We, Teuruarii, King of Rurutu"
  • 1888: "ask for a Prime Minister"; 1889: "ask for the Prime Minister"
  • 1888: "the protection of the British flag"; 1889: "the Protectorate of the British flag"
  • 1889 lacks a passage in the middle ("These are the islands" to "give us your flag to protect us") found in the 1888 version
  • 1888: "Rarotonga and the neighbouring islands"; 1889: "Raratonga and the neighboring islands"
  • 1888: "received the news that Rarotonga and the neighbouring islands"; 1889: "received news that Rarotonga and the neighboring islands"
  • 1888: "wept aloud because"; 1889: "wept aloud, because"
  • 1888: "forsaken by you; we were afraid"; 1889: "forsaken by you. We were afraid"
  • 1888: "gospel, but you did"; 1889: "Gospel. but you did"
  • 1888: "last word to you; we do not wish"; 1889: "last word to you—we do not wish"
  • 1889 lacks the end ("We pray you now" ff.) of the 1888 version
It's hard to tell if any mistakes (and which spelling conventions) were transmitted from the original and how much editing has gone on. Obviously the 1888 paper is more complete, but both have different mistakes; as it's not our job to try to correct our sources or piece together a "perfect" version from various texts, I still suggest proofreading both. Also, are "Ruruta" and "Raratonga" just typos or a different forms/spellings of the words? --xensyriaT 20:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC) EDIT: 20:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I've proofed the rest of the text and validated the petition (now marked as proofread); I also sectioned out the second source (the petition is in a section called "petition") but left the first as you'd marked out. As for the French Wikisource, you can use the same procedure that you've learnt here: you can proofread them by going to fr:Page:Procès-verbal de l'établissement du Protectorat de la France sur l'île Rurutu.jpg and fr:Page:Procès-verbal de l'établissement du Protectorat de la France sur l'île Rimatara et dépendances.jpg and clicking "Créer".
What do I do after I click Creer? Do I write in the text myself? The google book plain text version is riddle with so much mistakes and I have no idea how to make different columns for the signatures. Do you know where I can find a French user who could help me because I have idea how to use the accent marks and I will to copy and paste each letter that comes up. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, I can only see a snippet view of the Google sources you give (actually the two links lead me to the same place). If you find both sources on (where at least some volumes of the same title can be found), I'll upload that to Commons for you, which will give the OCR text to work from, and we'll have a complete source to transclude from. Interestingly, the book (British and Foreign State Papers) is English, but it contains these French texts: would the best way be to transclude the French text from an en Page: into the French Wikisource? --xensyriaT 10:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
All four are on the commons now.

Also what would the England and the Islands be titled?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly you guys are useless.-- 07:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Mystery of a Hansom Cab[edit]

ABCTV last night showed a telemovie adaptation of the book. Page views on the wp article have gone through the roof[27] (relatively). If anyone can assist in proofreading at Index:The Mystery of a Hansom Cab.djvu it would be appreciated. Thanks. Moondyne (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — Many thanks to Beeswaxcandle. Moondyne (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete unused category[edit]

Category:Urantia Book seems deprecated. Please delete, and thank you. Xaxafrad (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Transclusion question[edit]

If I have several pages that show text on the image pages but no text beside those image pages can I just type in the text and have it still transclude okay when book is completed? —William Maury Morris IITalk 08:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an example? I looked around your edits about this time and the problem did not jump out at me. Jeepday (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Nope, not yet but it may come. I refer to the entire volume I of The "Illustrated History of England" that I posted about on Scriptorium. The files are located on HathiTrust and presently I have as all images. However, I *think* that I need all of those in .PDF format. Thank you for trying to help. Would I have to have a text layer or can I just type in the text beside the images? It would look the same as all other books we work on. Respectfully, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 14:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
If there is no text layer, you can click the OCR Button. There is some discussion at Help:DjVu files on OCR. I am guessing your not familiar with the term so w:Optical character recognition. This is sometimes accomplished automatically, everything on my project Index:Latin for beginners (1911).djvu project is captured by OCR. I don’t remember if it happened semi-automatically or if I had to do a lot of button pushing. I do remember there was a language choice for the OCR program, but as it is in English and Latin, the OCR is pretty ugly as I choose English. That gets you pointed towards your answer, I think. Jeepday (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Jeepday. I will look over that area you've mentioned above but I am very familiar with OCR for many years now. My Adobe Acrobat ver 10.1.4 can create OCR and so can Internet Archives. However, I don't know what you refer to regarding "click the OCR button" (you didn't say what program) as there are several ways to create optical character resolution including programs. If you refer to a button on our editor, I have never used that--does it work? If you refer to one on HathiTrust I don't recall seeing an OCR button there. My question was not about how to do OCR. My question was about transclusion of typewritten material for curiosity's sake (for now) more than anything else. Respectfully, Maury (—William Maury Morris IITalk 05:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
It has been a while since I did the OCR so don’t remember the details. I have used the OCR button on our editor, but again I don’t recall the details. I guess my main message to you was; lack of a text layer is not that big of an issue, OCR would be the first choice before typing from text (always an option). I recall the OCR tool being down or finicky for a while, but I think that is fixed so I would just go ahead with the import and figure it out as you go. I don’t see a an import link at Help:Contents so maybe add one and update it as you go? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Having a djvu/pdf file without text layer is not a good start. Better to make sure to have the text layer in place before uploading to Commons. OCR button is a last resort, also for the quality of the OCR process you get out of it. Upload the document to IA and they will do the OCR. GOIII is expert in this area.--Mpaa (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Mpaa and thank you for the reply. Actually I am thinking of and working in two directions. One idea was just download all images and place them in .PDF format and then place that .PDF file on IA. The other method that I am doing is collecting all files in .PDF format (this doubles the same work) and then placing all individual .pdf files into a larger .PDF and uploading that to IA as well. Then let them all cook in IA until done. It may be a cake that falls in. I do this because I do not know which is the better method but I will find out one way or another by what happens. Some are cooking on IA now. I hope to get the Illustrated History of England volume I here in and after I finish that I will see if I want to do, and can endure, doing volumes 2-9 of the same project. I know about what GO3 can do but I don't think he likes doing it and he could place instructions on en.Wikisource for everyone. All I really need to know from him is about removing who digitized the works stamps on each page but I can also just leave the danged things there and continue onward. If I can get this project to work then that is wonderful. If I cannot get it to work it will not be because of any lack of trying and of asking others these questions and making these statements. Most respectfully, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 18:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

How do I remove "Gooble" and "University of XXXX" from .PDF Files? /[edit]

I would like to know how to remove "Gooble" and "University of XXXXX" from a few hundred .PDF Files compiled all into one .PDF file? I am working with Adobe Acrobat ver.10.1.4 I know that George Orwell III has done this with the same program I own but if he has ever left a detailed explanation anywhere I am not aware of it and I could not find the instructions on Wikisource in the area about .pdf, .djvu, files for removing the advertising on every page. —William Maury Morris IITalk 08:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a Colour World[edit]

How do we create a highlighted word in various colours? Pick a word, any word, just one word, and please show how that word can be highlighted in various colours—or is there an area where I can find this. Searching for highlight doesn't work and neither does highlighter. —William Maury Morris IITalk 18:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Per "mark" tag is new in HTML5, Internet Explorer 8 and earlier versions, do not support it. Hence you can try it but unless the browser is updated it will not show.
Pick a word any word
But it does not seem to work in Wikisource (works for me in the "try it yourself" link, need another solution. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 19:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I have seen highlighted words somewhere on Wikisource but I cannot recall where. I am now suspecting it was on Scriptorium and probably last year. Various colors were used. It was a conversation and people, I suppose, were experimenting with highlighted words. The code may be somewhat like my 4-tilde signature that colors my signature a medium blue and "Talk" as darker blue. I guess colored letters might do for what I seek. At times I encounter a word that is not easily to determine the correct spelling. As I edit these complex spellings of long ago I wish to color-code the word so that when validating other people can easily spot the suspect word. Presently I have marked two works in pages just as bold aka bold I thank you for trying to assist in this. You are a good, helpful, mannerable, and intelligent administrator. Seek no more. I will do without it. Respectfully, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 20:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
There is the background switch in the HTML font style tag as a possibility. e.g. A Study of Mexico {<font style="background:lightgreen">[[A Study of Mexico]]</span>}. However, I'm not sure that adding extra spans in the page namespace is a good idea. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I see what you mean, Beeswaxcandle. I don't think it is a good idea either. I'll just use bold to mark suspect words. Most of them I can figure out the spelling. Some of these very old places and tribes use spellings that I am not in the least familiar with. It is in the days of the Romans invading Celts in the area that became England. The text is also scrambled since each page has two columns but time and effort works that out. Thank you so much. No person would fare well on WS without the likes of our very helpful administrators. Respectfully, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 21:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Help - how do I cancel my account[edit]

I started an account but don't wish to maintain it. How do I cancel the account, please.

Also - I don't know how to sign my pages. It doesn't look the same as Wikipedia!

Answered on WS:AN Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Move over redirect request[edit]

Declined. The page Constitution of Ireland should be a versions page. See Help:Disambiguation for more details on how to do this. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Footnote behaving strangely[edit]

Hi, on this page I have a footnote that for some reason is displaying as a bullet instead of a numbered footnote, damned if I know why. Any help appreciated, many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I added a {{nop}} after the text which fixed it. I've seen this problem before with ":" indents on the last line but have no idea what causes it to behave like that. Moondyne (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I'll bear it in mind in future. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Trying to create 1-page index returns error[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to create a couple of 1-page indexes for missing pages from the full PDF that I managed to get hold of elsewhere.

The imported pages are Page:Means 1917, p32.png and Page:Means 1917, p33.png.

I created a new Index:Means 1917, p32.png but it is reporting a "no such file exists" error; as a result I am forced to directly transclude the pages here, which looks messy.

Obviously I did something wrong when I set up the Index, but I just can't see it. Any help appreciated, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it, but this is not the preferred way to go in these cases. You need to rework the pdf file, insert missing pages there and re-upload to commons. A bulk move of the rest of the pages is then required to realign to the new file. Pls fix the pdf file, provide the details on how pages needs to be realigned (move existing PDF positions nnn to mmm up +offset [new range Dxxx to Dyyy] to quote GOIII:-) ) and then we can take care of moving the pages.
Golden rule: better to check for file integrity before proofreading the text. Less work afterwards.--Mpaa (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I'll see what I can do but I don't have a PDF editor. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, downloaded a free PDF editor and I've fixed the sourcefile - a few hours work and I should have everything back in order... Simon Burchell (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I've cleaned up my own mess - Page:Means 1917, p32.png and Page:Means 1917, p33.png and their indexes can be deleted. Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I saw that you made the alignment manually. Hopefullly, there will be no need in future, but in case the process can be done with a bulk move, saving all the copy and paste. See my note above. Pls mark for delete your files at commons, I'll take care of the local ones.--Mpaa (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I should have paid more attention to your original post - all the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)