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 2017, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


Adding a bilingual Swatow-English dictionary (a Minnan dialect)[edit]

Hi, I'm new to Wikisource and I have a few questions about a bilingual dictionary I found on the web. It's this document pronouncing and defining dictionary of the Swatow dialect, arranged according to syllables and tones.

  • Is it legal to add this document to Wikisource ? The author died in 1916.
  • In which linguistic edition of Wikisource should I add it ? Minnan ? English ? The author is already mentionned in the English edition of Wikisource.

I apologize if this question is not asked at the correct place. Assassas77 (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

In terms of the file itself, the work was published in 1883 and the author died in 1916. This would make it {{PD-old}} (published pre-1923, author dead 100 or more years), which means it is hostable on WS.
Looking through the book, it looks to me that this is primarily a Swatow-to-English dictionary. That is, each entry shows a word in Swatow, followed by a pronunciation guide, an English definition or definitions, and then some example usages with accompanying English translations. Is that an accurate assessment? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is correct. So, I can start the procedure of reading helppages to understand exactly how Wikisource works and adding its DJVU ?
  • PS : are dictionaries accepted in Wikisource ?
  • I just checked in the document and it says : "Digitized for Microsoft Corporation by the Internet Archive in 2008. May be used for non-commercial, personal, research, or educational purposes, or any fair use. May not be indexed in a commercial service." Does it mean it can't be used on Wikisource ?Assassas77 (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this can be hosted here. To address your concerns:
Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome to start it here, or on zh-min-nan.wikisource if you would prefer and they accept it. Either way, a cross-note should be added (though that's up to zh-min-nan if they want one).--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Image/text placement[edit]

Can the placement of image and text be improved upon at this page, or is what I have sufficient? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I shifted the text up some by adding a negative bottom margin to the image. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
That is better, thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Page:Instruments of the Modern Symphony Orchestra.djvu/22[edit]

Recently converted this to sentence case, using an external tool, Is there a script for doing it internally? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a script that I know of, but you could use {{lc}}, then preview, copy the displayed text, then paste it back into the edit window. Not the neatest of solutions, but it would work in a pinch. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be 5-6 lines of Javascript, but would makes things a lot easier:)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Index:Instruments of the Modern Symphony Orchestra.djvu[edit]

Got the images done on this, but have no idea how to insert the musical score sections as adapting the help examples resulted in stuff that would not render.

Attempting to do the score portions as extracted images was also a non-starter because of limitations in my image editor/djuv viewer. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding a work without a scan[edit]

Hi, I want to add the poem "The Lark Ascending" by George Meredith. It's public domain, since Meredith died in 1909. Here's a link to the text. Do I need to find a paper copy to scan, or can I work off of the online version? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It is permitted to add works without a scan,. However, scans of "The Lark Ascending" are readily available, so I strongly urge you to use one of them. The link you point to is from A Victorian Anthology, 1837–1895 ed. Edmund Clarence Stedman, which has several scans: [1] [2]. You may find this collection more manageable :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
... and I've started off Index:Poems and lyrics of the joy of earth.djvu so that we can get a scan-backed copy. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
... and here's where you can add the poem: Page:Poems and lyrics of the joy of earth.djvu/80Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Help with MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js[edit]

@George Orwell III: @Hesperian: Hi! I've imported dynamic layouts to Ukrainian Wikisource and it's mostly works but I have following problem. Dynamic layout applying for Ukrainian version of Help:Beginner's guide to reliability. I'm understanding that layout applying because this page including Template:PageStatus that create the table used as indicator of ability apply dynamic layout, but in English Wikisource there are no dynamic layout in Help: namespace. Could you please explain in which way unexpected dynamic layout disabled in Help here? Just for note: in Ukrainian Wikisource we have the same namespace with the same index, code was mostly copy-pasted (and localized for Ukrainian). Artem.komisarenko (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

/*Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 5 */[edit]

I and two others cannot fix the 1st page marked in Problematic-Purple on Index:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 5.djvu . It is very short, probably needs something like text float over the image. Will someone smarter than us please assist with this? —Maury (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I want to personally THANK whoever fixed the above problem. It is very kind of you and you also aided Wikisource itself. I had thought nobody would help with it. Kindest regards, Maury —Maury (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
A 2nd complicated image has reared its head and caused confusion and stress. It is similar to the above. Will someone please take on this one? It is the only one marked purple for problematic.

Volume 5 —Maury (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

That one I would just float in the center with no text wrapping, at any appropriate gap in the text. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Index pages which is not linked with Authors page[edit]

I need small help from you. I need a maintenance category of a list Index pages which is not linked with Authors page. Normally we add each index page linked with {{small scan link|}} template in authors page. Can it be possible to add some code in Mediawiki:Proofreadpage index template, to create this category?? Jayantanth (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Except some people use {{scan}}... --Mukkakukaku (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Black letter Heading[edit]

The Authour's Apology for his Book. : 0

The Authour's Apology for his Book. : 1

The Authour's Apology for his Book. : 2

The Authour's Apology for his Book. : 3

The Authour's Apology for his Book. : 4

The actual heading on Page:The Pilgrim's Progress, the Holy War, Grace Abounding Chunk1.djvu/9 uses a modern style stroked k glyph. Suggestions or do I just ignore this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Needed to update my version of the underlying fonts (blush), But the {{blackletter }} template doesn't account for the character variant uppercase A used in the work. Can someone technical look into this, and the issue or the routnda r used in {{rr}} ? Thanks.
Blackletter will look slightly different depending upon the locally selected font used by the viewer's browser. And forcing a particular font from our end is rather counter to what we try to do. I wouldn't worry about it. After all, we're not preserving the line indentations at the start of each stanza, nor the amount of space between stanzas, so fuss over the typographical style of a lowercase "k" is a minor issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The upper case issue would seem to need cv04 , If I am reading the font's documentation correctly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Which I can't seem to get working using the documentation provided. Suggestions?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with User:EncycloPetey. Every blackletter font is different, and there is no point worrying about the individual glyphs. A and k should be sufficient in the vast majority of cases regardless of what the original scan's A and k look like.
The only time it would matter, is when the text is deliberately choosing one form over the other. For example, say a book on calligraphy that wants to demonstrate the difference between blackletter forms of A, or in which the author states that they deliberately chose one form of glyph over another for some reason or other. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Like with the facsimile edition elswhere on Wikisource which is why I asked about {{rr}} as well :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
No, not like a facsimile edition. A facsimile is trying to reproduce every feature of a work, including margins, spacing, alignment, fonts, and all the things we don't preserve on Wikisource. There are some features over which we simply have no control. There are some features we can try to preserve, but at some point we have to admit that we can't control font and typography to such a degree in an electronic medium. Which is why we don't usually worry about ligatures other than æ and œ, for example. If you're not preserving the spacing between stanzas or the line indentation, then the shape of select uses of "r" shouldn't really be of concern, should they? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
You misunderstood, I was refering to a very specfic edition where the point Beleg Tâl made DID apply in that one specfic instance. Generally of course you point is fully undderstood. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
Facsimile editions are an odd case. We do not try to produce facsimiles on Wikisource. Preserving line breaks, fonts, indents, and other items that are against WS:MOS are not done when transcribing facsimiles. Items like {{ls}} or {{rr}} are a bit different; some editors would replace with an s or r, but there is no consensus against using ſ or ꝛ. In the case of the Pilgrims Progress project, the author points out the fact that he uses ꝛ in certain places, so in that case the use of ꝛ is more appropriate. However, he also states that he is deliberately using a font similar to the original, and paper that is similar to the original, neither of which makes sense to try to preserve. Since he says nothing about choosing A over A or k over k, which are essentially differences of font, I would avoid worrying about which to use. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
For the sake of readability, can we just leave the heading as a normal font? Is there a reason in this case to use blackletter, especially since we're not supposed to be producing facsimiles, as pointed out by Beleg Tâl? Because the variant chosen now appears to read -- on my computer and browser, at least -- "The Author's Apology for his Boot." --Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that avoiding blackletter altogether is a bit much; however, your comment is exactly why {{blackletter}} substitutes glyphs with more readable ones by default. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

lay out of index[edit]

Hello, can anyone please help me with the index on this page (and the following) of A Treatise of Taxes and Contributions by William Petty. I can't find out how I can get the page numbers on the same line as the text. What mistake do I make? Just the hint, please! Thanks, --Dick Bos (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the page. You want to use {{float right}} to have the element float to the right of the line, instead of {{right}} which creates a new right-aligned paragraph. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, User:Beleg Tâl! That was exactly what I was looking for. Greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

NOP template[edit]

I have a request to make. Is it at all possible that the documentation for this template can be adjusted to include some mention when using the <poem> and </poem> tags. I knew there was something somewhere where someone had mentioned at some time about the correct procedure to ensure breaks between stanzas. I have been struggling with my recent validation by putting <br/> on the second page. I knew this was not really right, although it worked. I finally asked "the right question" in search and found the answer on a userpage Sept 2016.

Also by monitoring userpage talks, I learned that NOP has to be on a line by itself, yet documentation does not state this. For newcomers, relying on Scriptorium help and userpages for information may not be the easiest way to process transcription. Unless all you who have been for a while really like repeating yourselves over and over again on the same issues(?) Humbug26 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as I have seen, the nop template has following uses:
  1. End of first page, for page-spanning paragraph breaks
  2. Blank line + nop at end of first page, for page-spanning stanza breaks in poems
  3. Start of second page, for page-spanning tables
  4. After line-break causing template (center, block center, image placement templates etc.) at the end of a page, otherwise page number on left margin may not be displayed on transclusion.
There is one more use I have seen, but right now I cannot remember. Hrishikes (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The stanza break for poetry was discussed here, in case you were curious; Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help/Archives/2014#Poems and page breaks. It's just one of those magic templates that you start putting everywhere when things just aren't looking the way they're supposed to. </joke> --Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
There's some info on {{nop}} and <poem /> on Help:Poetry#Poem_extension, and I've added a link to this in the nop template docs. Feel free to expand with anything that's missing. Sam Wilson 02:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
template:nop is essentially a disruptive template to mediawiki's wish to crunch whitespace and everything. Essentially we utilise it as a placeholder of whitespace, and is needed more at the Wikisources due to our corruption of the main editing pane for our evil purposes. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all for the excellent info. I didn't realize that the Help:Poetry had been changed recently to show a solution to the issue I was having (just about the same time as I was grappling with the issue...hmmm). As always there are a number of ways to process this; everybody has their favourite. Thanks for updating NOP documentation with a link. Humbug26 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Which type of page?[edit]

It is requested to see pages Page:Indian Copyright Act 1957.djvu/1 and Page:Indian Copyright Act 1957.djvu/2. I have made edits/proofreading of these pages differently. The first one is in the wiki format type. The page 2 is a normal proof reading without wiki formatting.

Please communicate as what type of page is preferred here. Type /1 or type /2 , so that I can go ahead with that type of editing/proofreading.


--V.narsikar (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@V.narsikar: We try to be truer to the work, and not use wiki-headings, so more the second page, than the first. If you have a look at Help:Templates you will see the templates that we predominantly use. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Tables across page breaks[edit]

I noticed a problem of displaying tables across page breaks: if trying to apply all formatting as described in the Help:Page breaks#Tables_across_page_breaks,—as I have done, for example, on pages of Index:Special 301 Report 2010.pdf: page 53 (as in index) / 49 (as in the report itself) and page 54 / 50,—then such problems are present—as on the transcluded page Special 301 Report/2010/Annex 2:

  • the page link [ 50 ] should point to the page 54 / 50, but instead of this the link points to;
  • the top row of the second part of the table, which is on the second page, is "eaten up" and not displayed: page 54 / 50—the top row is "Portugal March 2010", on the transclusion it should be after "Netherlands March 2010" (the bottom row of the previous page 53 / 49) and before "Spain March 2010", but on the transcluded page the row "Portugal March 2010" is absent (while displaying).

The same problems I saw also on other pages, and today I tried fixed them, for example—on the front page of the same 2010 Special 301 Report, in edits: first page and second page, and it seems that this works—now the frint page is displayed properly.

Are these issues some problems of the Mediawiki engine? If so—may someone register bug on the Mediawiki developers (if it has not been registered yet)? Or Mediawiki works fine, but the help page Help:Page breaks is somewhat obsolete and needs to be updated, or it's just me that I missed something and did something wrong on that formatting? --Nigmont (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nigmont: I am guessing (without looking) that you have row markers at the end of the body page. If you just end a table with last bit of text (then close it out in the footer after a blank line), then start the new body with

|text text text

then you should have no problems. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

"@Nigmont: <grrr> some have been asked to change their text due to that fault, and seem to have failed to amend. I have amended the help page. (The page is still pretty busy.) — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Billinghurst: thank you very much! In particular, thanks for the hint that a blank line is to be inserted in the footer before "|}", instead of adding "|-" wrapped in "noinclude" at the end of main body of the page as I did; and also thanks for updating the help page. --Nigmont (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Sacred Books of the East header[edit]

Anyone who has more ability in this matter want to try to construct a header for the above books, like for instance the page at Page:Sacred Books of the East - Volume 1.djvu/426? I think it is probably beyond me, unfortunately. John Carter (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@John Carter: Done. In this book, J of current standard is written G (italic G) and Ṁ (w:Anusvara) as M (italic M). Hrishikes (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The page header looks fine to me. (sorry, saw it after Hrishikes' edit) On an unrelated note, however, is there a reason you are using two line breaks instead of a paragraph break between paragraphs? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Because I couldn't get anything else to work correctly, he responded sheepishly? John Carter (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Normal paragraphs should work correctly. I've put them on the page in question. Where does it cause problems? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:Right sidenote[edit]

The Template:Right sidenote is not working properly I suppose. OR there may be something I am missing. Can anyone fix-up the issue of display of the pages in Page:Indian Copyright Act 1957.djvu/5 and Page:Indian Copyright Act 1957.djvu/5. The scanned copy gets mixed up with the matter.While previewing it looks alright but after saving it gets mixed up. Please help.

--V.narsikar (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The right sidenote has never displayed properly in the Page: namespace. It should look fine when transcluded.
However, I notice you've added hard line breaks at some very odd locations, and have not joined up hyphenated words. Please see Help:Beginner's guide to typography. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The use of left and right sidenotes gets really ugly when transcluded — saw-tooth effect. You can use the {{RL sidenote}} variation which puts in the right in Page: ns, and repositions when transcluded to main ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks everybody for helping and guiding.

--V.narsikar (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Help needed from ro.wikisource[edit]

Hi. I decided to write here since on ro.wikisource there is virtually no sysop (or any experimented active user). My intention is to transcript a law. At ro.wikipedia a sysop suggested there is a transcription mechanism in which you get to have the scanned page you want to transcript on the left and the editor on the right. However, he didn't know how to use it. And that brings me to ask you for a little help. How do I use the transcription mechanism? Thank you! Wintereu 23:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

We have two articles with instructions that would be useful to you:
Those should tell you everything you need to know. We will be happy to answer any questions. For examples on ro.wikisource, see ro:Categorie:Index. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Does formatting have to be fully faithful to the original?[edit]

I ask because I've already done partial digitization of a book elsewhere. I want to continue it here but my work reformats the original slightly to be more legible (IMO) for the 21st century: link vs. link. Suzukaze-c (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes and No:
  • When we transcribe in the Page namespace, as you are currently doing, we want to match the formatting of the original as closely as is possible and reasonable. The faithful transcriptions are then transcluded into the Main namespace to provide a text that matches the original.
  • However, we do allow for "annotated" versions (policy details are still under review), and I think it would be reasonable to create a second "annotated" version using the friendlier formatting. This would not use the transcription in the Page namespace directly, but would be copy-pasted to a new location in the Main namespace as a second copy of the work. The second copy would have notes in the header of each page explaining exactly how (and why) the formatting differs from the original.
  • Also: Please note that we strip the Google notice page from the front of works which we host. The notice is neither part of the original, nor presents any supportable claim of copyright. It is better to have this change made before editing individual pages, since it will affect page numbering.
--EncycloPetey (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Encyclopetey's "we match the formatting of the original as closely as it possible", I would add that we try to capture the intent of the author while ignoring the contribution of the typographer. We don't care what font was chosen, we don't care about line breaks, etc. Hesperian 23:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Legibility and faithfulness to the text are our drivers. So allowing the user's browser, in the user's viewing platform (wide monitor or small telephone) to do the work! Within that we may use a template like {{blackletter}} (blackletter) to represent some part of the work, we wouldn't force a change from how a user has set their default browser typeface nor size, with all our text sizing being relative proportional. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the answers. I suppose I'll try to match the original for now. (also, what software should I use to remove the Google notice...) Suzukaze-c (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I've never learned how to manipulate a DjVu file myself, and unless you know how to edit DjVu files properly (it can be tricky), then it's best to post a request for someone's assistance. We have a few skilled hands here who can help with that. Learning how to do this might make for a good talk at a Wikisource gathering. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I notice there's a section for requests of this sort at Help:Internet_Archive#Google_Books that seems to be rather neglected. Suzukaze-c (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Vast bulk of people here are neither net nor image geeks, they are interested in the magic of the word, and its transcription. Predominantly none of us has worried about the image scans having the Google component, and as it doesn't affect our transcription and presentation, we politely ignore it. Noting that I do have a little search and replace script that deletes that component on the occasions that it gets reproduced by the OCR which I use as part of my general text clean-up when proofreading. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
(forest and trees <sigh>) Oh, you mean the front notice page. I blank the text, and mark it as a blank page. I have been gently asking for some time for someone to build a labs tool that could excise the front page, and replace it with a blank page. No-one has considered it of sufficient importance to progress. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Could we use User:Wikisource-bot at Commons? It would be possible to tag the djvu page with some template and let the bot run periodically on tagged pages?— Mpaa (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mpaa: I had thought that Commons would like to do something similar to rotatebot, so I had thought a new tool. That said, I see no reason why we couldn't use Wikisource-bot. I don't see an issue and we are not necessarily needing bot permissions (overt editing is okay) and as long as we show how we are going to prevent/manage abuse, so presumably some template tagging and/or an oauth permission. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 22:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I think that we can do a script running as ws-bot on tool-labs. We have to decide the template format and make a tracking Category. I can take care of making the script and check the djvu manipulation. I suggest a template with one param, just stating: 1. replace first page with blank image, 2. delete the first page. Shall we move this discussion somewhere else maybe?— Mpaa (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mpaa: "Replace only" (image and text) would be my preference if this is a task that anyone can request. Removing pages could cause problems. If we were to have a remove first page functionality, I would prefer to see that as part of ia-upload functionality where it is an alternative when we grab something from IA and we know it came from Google. Yes, I think that we can take this elsewhere once the strategy has been determined. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
If you're willing to try it, the easiest way to do it is with DjView, see Help:DjVu files#Removing a copyright page, though that description could do to be fleshed out a bit. The best place to ask for someone to do it for you is probably the Repairs (and moves) section of the Scriptorium. Also: while we don't really care if the page is present here on Wikisource, I have seen the folks on Wikimedia Commons flag files for deletion if they contain this file, so that is also something to keep in mind. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: I think that I have complained sufficiently that they have stopped deleting those works. I went through the argument that an author's work that is in the public domain should not be prevented due to Google slapping a generic page on the front. The deletions and nominations have seemed to have stopped. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Apropos removing the Google frontsheet. The most practical way is to ignore it and treat it as without text. But some editors may still want its removal. This should not hinder proofreading, because it can be later replaced with a blank. Some of us can do it, e.g. User:Mpaa, User:Jpez and myself. I suggest putting up a list of such books at some place, so that when someone capable wants to do it, he/she can gradually progress through the list. Hrishikes (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer having the page removed rather than replaced. Its presence affects the numbering such that odd page numbers in the work appear on even page numbers in the file (and vice versa), and this becomes confusing in a work of any length. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The quickest method (IMO) is to use the command line DjVuLibre tools, as so: [3]. Download the tools, put djvm.exe in the same folder as the DjVu file, and run djvm.exe -d foo.djvu 1 in a command prompt, where foo.djvu is the name of your file. (Edit: ah, this exact method is laid out at Help:DjVu files#Removing a copyright page.) clpo13(talk) 23:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What about Page:An alphabetic dictionary of the Chinese language in the Foochow dialect.djvu/31, where Chinese text couldn't be placed inline due to technical difficulties during printing and had to be moved to the footer? Suzukaze-c (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I would preserve this formatting; it should be straightforward using footnotes. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Presidential Executive Orders[edit]

I am making a list of presidential executive orders that include unnumbered executive orders. Can anyone help memake this article a full and complete list. Here is the link to the edit page. I have the first four executive orders of Washington so far. Here's the link to edit:

unsigned comment by PoliticalBuff (talk) .

This needs to be in the Portal: namespace rather than the Main: namespace. This is because List of … is not a published work. There already is a Portal:Executive Orders that could be expanded. I note there is also a Wikiproject for the Executive Orders. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@PoliticalBuff: As pointed out above, there are already some editors who have been working on that (myself included--I also work on Commons and Wikipedia on the topic). I'll be happy to work with you. For what it's worth, all executive orders are numbered and published in the Federal Register. You may be thinking of presidential memoranda or proclamations, which are not always numbered (although memoranda are if they are published in the Federal Register). —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that it is worth also mentioning Wikisource:For Wikipediansbillinghurst sDrewth 22:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

File:US OPM Citizenship Laws of the World 2001.pdf[edit]

Would someone please convert the content to the text format here to archive? Please do not update the content here. I am planning a book on Wikibooks based on this work about citizenship. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jusjih: I have no idea about what you are wanting. The file isn't here, there is no evidence that there is any relationship to the file and text here. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I mean formatting the text from the PDF on Commons to make articles here. I am unable to make page namespace, so I ask here.--Jusjih (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Upload a book from a text file[edit]

I'm familiar with wikimedia projects and the template system, but i've never contributed to and i need some advices.

I want to add the book The Ashley book of knots from the Internet Archive. I've checked for copyright purposes and it looks ok.

I cleaned the text, cropped the pictures and, though there are many OCR errors, now i want to upload it. The whole text is in a big TXT file. How do i have to do it?

I read Help:Adding texts, Help:Transclusion and Help:Beginner's guide to transclusion, but since i don't work with a DJVU file, it doesn't help me.

I can create The Ashley book of knots and a page for each of the 44 chapters, but it will lose the pagination. Since it's a documentary reference, i think it would be a shame.

The book is mainly a list of numbered knots with references between each other. It didn't find a suitable model to facilitate this navigation, is it ok to use HTML anchors?

About illustrations, the procedure consists in uploading them to Commons and then use the [[File:my_picture.png]] model. Am i right?

While the book is not uploaded, i can change a model to another in the whole book in a few minutes. But once it's uploaded, making such modification is a too big work for me. Likewise, i really don't want to create 600 pages by hand. VincentPalmieri (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I think The Ashley Book of Knots is still under copyright, unfortunately (it'd be a great work to have here!). It was published in 1944, Clifford Ashley died in 1947, and the copyright was renewed in 1971; therefore the copyright term is 95 years after first publication. Sam Wilson 23:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, i misunderstood the copyright renewal laws... Thank you for pointing it out and see you in 2039 :) VincentPalmieri (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Aligned table can't be spanned over pages...[edit]

Despite supporting nofooter, {{aligned table}} can't be used to span multiple pages because it's not possible to put the end |}<nowiki></tt> as the parser having not seen a matching <tt><nowiki>{| opening.

The problem arose here:- Page:Indian_Copyright_Act_1914.djvu/44

Please provide a means of spanning {{aligned-table}}'s that won't break in the parser, Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

{{aligned table|noheader=yes|nobody=yes}}: You have been told this before. This is why you get little respect. Perhaps you should lift your game just a little? unsigned comment by (talk) .
Can you explain where this was previously mentioned so I can bookmark the link?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
And thanks, Your fix also means I don't need to put in {{nop}} or worry about precisely where to put table row markers :) You've solved more than one problem :).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Considered resolved with the explanation given. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Easy way to add lines between pages?[edit]

I'm working on transcribing a collection of political cartoons (Cartoons by Bradley/Cartoons) where most pages consist of a single image with title, caption, and occasional explanatory text. Since the text and images on the pages don't flow across pages, I would like to visually break each page into a self-contained space, e.g. with a page break line. Do I need to transpose each page separately, as in <pages index="Cartoons by Bradley.djvu" from=39 to=39/>{{page break|label=}}, etc…, or is there a way I can easily transpose a range of pages, with page breaks added automatically? Thanks, and if anyone could point to some similar picture books I could model this after, I’d be much obliged. -Animalparty (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sidenote: if you're only doing a single page, you can use include=39 instead of a from/to pair. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@Animalparty: Unfortunately there is no means to apply a page customised page break within <pages>. It would be a kewl feature and one of which I have pondered. The issue is that usually it is not universal to format that way for a whole transclusion. I have always thought that you could always do something cheat like adding all of that onto the pages and sticking it inside a <includeonly> set. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst, @Mukkakukaku: Thanks for the comments. I had success copying the markup in a Excel spreadsheet, obviating the need to manually enter each page no. Animalparty (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Short Titles - Character enquiry.[edit]

On Page Page:Public_General_Statutes_1896.djvu/34 the entry for 27 Hen. 8. contains a modified c (second letter) in concnying, what is the character and is is it in unicode? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I asked around with some friends versed in palaeography, and apparently what we're looking at here is a printer's approximation of secretary hand scribe's abbreviation marks. The funky "c" in 27 Hen. 8. c. 10. is a vertical line attached to the "c" indicating the elision of the letters er, so the word should be transcribed as "concernyng". In 21 Jas. 1. c. 16., the ditto characters are actually a "ti", so the words should be transcribed "lymytation" and "action". Similarly, for 1 Chas. 1. c. 1., the macron on the "o" is the (apparently really common) "bar mark" that here indicates the missing "m" following, and the word should be transcribed as "committed". --Xover (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus on this? I frequently transcribe such words as written, knowing that they are abbreviations. Without consensus, I would no more expand "com̄itted" to "committed" than I would expand "isn't" to "is not". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: My apologies. When I wrote "transcribe" above I was speaking from a palæographic point of view: in general, when deciphering Secretary hand, you would transcribe it as described above. I did not mean to imply that that was the specific correct approach for Wikisource, but in retrospect I see that that is what was implied by what I wrote.
However, that being said, my initial position on this—absent other data or guidance—would be that the above should be how we treat the issue on Wikisource too. There is simply no reasonable alternative:
  1. the original typography cannot be reproduced with Unicode (as of 9.0, or even MUFI) or HTML/CSS, and mostly they cannot even be approximated by clever use of unrelated combining characters;
  2. randomly picking part of the original letterform that one thinks looks like a "c" and transcribing that would be significantly misleading when the letterform actually represents "ti" ("accon" vs. "action");
  3. expanding some scribal abbreviations, but not all, would be inconsistent and confusing, so even those that can be reproduced, like the bar mark represented by a macron, should be expanded for consistency. As a bonus, this approach also leads to more legible text that's easier to read for our audience.
If, however, you feel this would be in violation of some policy on WS, or that there is significant doubt about where the community would land on this question, then this is probably something that should be brought up for wider discussion. --Xover (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your position. I somewhat disagree with your assessment, though I think it has a lot of merit. I will address it further in a comment below to avoid forking the conversation.
Most likely original is Chancery hand given the context.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Would you mind reading through subsequent pages and looking for similar marks?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: I had a look at a few pages and didn't notice any you'd missed. However, in several places you've transcribed the funky "e" as simply "s", but it is, I believe, actually abbreviating "es". So for 5 & 6 Will. & Mar. c. 20. (The Bank of England Act, 1694.), you should have "poundes towardes", instead of "pounds towards", for "pound@ toward@" (the at-sign here representing the funky "e"). --Xover (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Come on people, there was no standardised spelling until Johnson's dictionary (surely you have seen the Blackadder episode). So you have a modern representation of 15th/16thC English where they are dealing with alternate spellings and often with standard abbreviations in rote documents. Have a read of an 18thC will, or the probate and you will see similar things. Type it as you see it, and if necessary, use {{SIC}} if you think that someone believes it is a transcription error or it gives a little clarity. When a work is finally transcluded you can stick notes on the work's talk page and point to them with the parameter "edition". — billinghurst sDrewth 22:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: My apologies for being obtuse, but while I get the gist of your comment, I fail to apprehend the specific course of action you're advocating. The issue with this specific text is that the printer of the edition from which our scan was made, attempted to reproduce the abbreviation marks of a previous (presumably original) hand written edition. These abbreviation marks cannot be reproduced directly with Unicode or MUFI, and representing the scribe's abbreviation for "ti" with a "c" just because the abbreviation's symbol vaguely resembles the latin letter c in part of its glyph is misleading. On the other hand, expanding these abbreviated forms does, as Beleg Tâl points out above, alter the original text, and doing it right requires significant qualifications in palæography (I have a superficial familiarity with the field, and I had to ask for help; the average editor should not be expected to be familiar with this stuff). In other words, the issue isn't primarily related to non-standard spelling or unfamiliar abbreviations; it's probably more akin to presence of something like Ancient Greek or Punic letters that aren't supported in Unicode and therefore can't be accurately transcribed. --Xover (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Xover: By putting a modern spelling into place one would be presuming and/or annotating. We type what we see or as close as we possibly can interpret, so if it an m with an overstrike and we have the character we type it, if we don't it is as close as possible. We are transcribers not interpreters of work, so to successfully proofread and validate a work the community has set up our guidance to that process. Anyone is welcome to take the work and to interpret it somewhere else. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: With all due respect, are you sure you're not replying somewhat too hastily here? I fail to square your responses with the specific problem encountered with this particular work. For instance, we're not talking about applying a modern spelling: quite to the contrary, in one of them we should use "poundes towardes", instead of "pounds towards" (i.e. a more archaic spelling than what had originally been used in the transcription). Take a look at the table on the linked page, in rows 2 and 6 you'll find no less than three different glyphs that are not found in the Latin alphabet and are not combinations of Latin characters with diacritics or ligatures (I'm simplifying somewhat for clarity here). These glyphs may visually vaguely resemble Latin characters ("c" and "e", specifically), but to render them as such would be plain wrong (like transcribing δ as o or 𒐊 as w). Since we can't represent these glyphs with Unicode as of version 9.0 of the standard, we're left with two sub-optimal options: to expand the abbreviations that these glyphs mark (to the relevant archaic spelling that was intended by the scribe, not a modern version), or invent our own random transliteration of these glyphs that will significantly mislead any reader (the spelling indicated is not pounde or pounds, it's poundes). --Xover (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
As per my comment above, I somewhat disagree with your assessment, and agree with Billinghurst. While I do agree that there are downsides to both approaches, I think it is better to invent a similar-looking equivalent than to invent an expanded unabbreviated version. If I see 'acc͠ons' in the text, I might make up several potential approximations (accons, acc͠ons, acc̃ons, accons, &c) but all of these are better than replacing it with "actions". Again, I think it is similar to modern abbreviations. If I see 'isn't' in the text, I could render it in a few ways, many of which are incorrect (isn't, isn’t, isn′t, isn`t), but all of these are better than rendering it as 'is not'.
In the worst case there will be no correct Unicode symbol to represent a glyph; in such cases a visual approximation is probably okay. An example I encountered recently: the Cambrian symbol 'Ꞓ' was recently added to Unicode, but before it showed up there were a number of common ways of representing the symbol, including as struck-through C 'C' or a Ukrainian Ye 'Є'. Neither of these are ideal, but both are better than expanding 'Ꞓ' to 'Cambrian'.
Using the examples you gave: if there is a 'δ' in the text, it might be incorrectly transcribed as 'o', which would need to be fixed by a later editor—but it should never be transcribed as 'd' or as 'delta', but only ever as 'δ'. If someone did a visual equivalence and came up with '𝛿' or 'ẟ' or even '∂', those would be wrong, but still better than rendering it as 'd'.
In this page in question, the word 'conc[swirly]nyng' could be rendered as anything from 'conc̉nyng', 'conc͗nyng', 'conc̛nyng', 'conc᷒nyng', 'concꝰnyng', &c., and some of these might be okay, and some of them might be very wrong, but they are all better than writing it as 'concernyng' (or worse, 'concerning'). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Hmm. Thank you for explaining. I disagree with your conclusion, but I agree that that is one valid approach given we can't reproduce the original faithfully. If this accurately reflects billinghurst's position, then I also better understand their response above.
Your main analogy, as I have understood it, is to things like "isn't". These are much simpler cases, mere contractions (where ' marks the occurrence of an elision), where the ones in question here hover somewhere in the neighbourhood of an amalgam of diacritical marks and a complete glyph in their own right. These do not simply mark a contraction, but entire strings of characters. Things like "isn't" vs. "is not" also have the disadvantage here of being so familiar to modern readers that changing between them affects the register of the sentence they appear in; where the ones we are discussing here are unfamiliar enough that it will have no such effect on readers.
You also point to the "invention" of an expanded version, and describe it as equivalent to inventing a visually similar equivalent. However, the expanded versions here are not in any sense invented (the shorthand was, AIUI, standard and common across most of Europe). There are rules governing them (case in point, that funky "e"-like symbol means "es" in older texts but morphs into just "s" around the 18th century) and a field of science studying them (palæography). This in contrast with trying to use a "visual approximation" because that is literally just a random Wikisource editor making stuff up in the spur of the moment. Now, depending on the setting and the editor, what they come up with may be a really good and well thought out visual approximation; but it is still just a random WS editor making stuff up. I would assert, rather forcefully, that the two are not at all comparable.
Therefore I don't find your argument persuasive.
However, on further reflection, I've found a fairly damning argument against my own position: namely that palæography is among the most obscure black arts there is, and it would not be reasonable to expect familiarity with it of the average editor. I happen to be acquainted with people perverse enough to consider it a pleasurable pastime, but my own facility in it is only very superficial, and I would attempt to engage in it only very reluctantly and when absolutely necessary.
Thus I still find your position reasonable, just for a different reason.
Ultimately though, I think I would still argue in favour of preferring the expanded version, but allowing a "visual approximation". But in the latter case, I think some sort of annotation should probably be required ({{SIC}}, or a suitable variant, that briefly explains to the reader what's going on). Possibly a similar requirement should apply also for the expanded version: like yourself, I also don't find the expansion optimal and consider it to be an alteration of the text that I would prefer to avoid.
Anyways, I take it there is no existing policy or guidance that addresses this issue specifically? Is there, do you think, a need to bring this to the wider community (e.g. Scriptorium/Proposals or some such) for discussion? Would it actually accomplish anything (would anyone care about this edge case)? I haven't run across this issue in my own projects as yet (I was only trying to help out ShakespeareFan00 here), so I'm in no particular hurry, but I can vividly imagine running into in the future (16th through 19th-century English literature and theatre history is my interest). It would be nice to have it properly settled and clear guidance available when I do. --Xover (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
There is no exact wording that specifically and directly addresses this example. We try to be both reasonable and practicable, not rely on blackletter rules, so beyond Wikisource:Style guide (also subpage on orthography) there is much text that guides in the matter about our approach, eg. Help:Beginner's guide to typography. Our principle is to accurately transcribe/reproduce the text of the published work for the web/html/wiki/device world. Annotations and interpretations are not our primary goal, those are secondary goals (see Wikisource:Annotations and Help:Annotating.) We describe that we wish to be able to print/display a work so that it replicates the original, if there is a means to annotate that allows the original and allows the secondary, fantastic. We have notes sections that can be used, we have work's talk pages, portals and wikiprojects that can all be utilised for explanatory and extensive purposes.

There is no perfection, there is no perfect answer. We have to have something that we can all transcribe, and that we can display for users, and have something that represents the author's work.— billinghurst sDrewth 01:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

So which of the myraid of revisions to use? I'm only wanting to change it ONCE.

Perhaps it's time to take a break until people care enough to actually sort things out? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate epithet. How dare you say that nobody here cares. Have a break and grab a perspective. The world will not end. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Please accept my apology, as noted elsewhere I had a meltdown.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Greek specialist[edit]

If there is such a person on-site, would you please check Page:The Soul of a Bishop.djvu/185? I made the attempt and would like someone who really knows Greek to check if my efforts are close or way out in left-field. Humbug26 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done You were using lower-case π instead of Π, but it was otherwise correct. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated. Humbug26 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
FYI, you can use {{greek missing}} to flag the page for review by someone familiar with Greek typography. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes absolutely. Perhaps, next time. Humbug26 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

OCR Aligngment?[edit]

I was checking the pagelist on something and came across:- Page:Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London.djvu/39

which as far as I see it appears to be the OCR content of the page for which the scan is at Page:Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London.djvu/40

I left a note for the uploader, but they claim not to see this particular issue.

Can I get another opinion?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Udpated, The uploader responsed by testing in a different browser and is now seeing this issue with Firefox. It would be nice to pin this down to a specifc browser glitch. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I doubt it would be a browser glitch. It's probably a problem with the text layer in the DJVU file itself. I see it in my browser (Vivaldi, uses Chromium) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
The uploader stated on their talk page that they hadn't seen the issue with developer edition of Safari..( Hmmm.... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the text layer for Page:Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London.djvu/38 is missing entirely, which is a file problem, but it could be that there's a browser or plugin or MediaWiki problem that is causing subsequent pages' text layers to collapse back and fill in the gap. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

CharInsert Gadget won't display[edit]

I have CharInsert enabled in my Gadgets, but I don't see the interface below the edit summary. Was something changed in a recent version or is my browser update being a pain as per usual? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: It is now above the toolbar in page namespace, as per display in my edit window. Hrishikes (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Is that CharInsert or the SpecialCharacters thing in the ehnanced toolbar? I ask because the OLD Char Insert had some additional symbols "SpecialCharecters" doesn't.

Do you have a screenshot of what you are seeing? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

When logged out it appears. I've tried resetting options to default. Recently I was testing Visual Editor and that may have upset an internal setting. Any admins care to reset my user preferences to "known" clean ones without VE?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm - It would seem that following the advice here : Help:Layout#How_to_use_dynamic_layouts is what caused CharInsert to not display.

I got some debug logs of a page loading reviewed in media-wiki. :)

Someone needs to look into Dynamic Layouts again it would seem.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Page:The pilgrims progress as originally published by John Bunyan ; being a facsimile of the first edition (1878).djvu/217[edit]

Has someone changed the font settings? The sidenotes here were displayed as being bigger than the main text, DEPSITE the relevant template saying they should be at 83% which is smaller.

Suggestions?11:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This turned out to be a browser issues. Some browsers have a minimum font size option for accessibility which had become enabled in my case. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Solaris Systems Python Source Code tables with sample pictures[edit]

Dear Wikisource Force:

I am Arturo Saucedo and need to figure out how to start a book of source code that will include greenbar samples and if it works it will become a wikibook. - Regards.

This is Wikisource, not Wikibooks. We only deal with published works here. See Wikisource:What Wikisource includes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

lay out table[edit]

Can anyone please lend me a helping hand with this content-page of Petty's Political Anatomy, before I continue. I don't manage to get the page numbers on the same line as the text. Thanks in advance, --Dick Bos (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dick Bos: I have done the first two lines. Looks fine in preview mode, so it will work on transclusion. Hrishikes (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Printer marks[edit]

Encoded in good faith, Page:Cowie's Printer's pocket-book and manual.djvu/29 but these should I think really be in-line images, as I can't find the Unicode Equivalances (in context) for these. Encoding them as an angle and a 7 seems wrong to me. Thoughts? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that angle marks and square brackets are fine to use here, since they are essentially the right shape. Seven is less ideal, since it doesn't represent a simple angle, nor is it always displayed as such (e.g. sometimes it's crossed), but there's a "turned angle" character which I've substituted for it. However, if you want to find/create a suitable SVG image and use that instead, I think that would be fine. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Turned angle is fine. Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


Hello, anyone know why half of the instrument name is missing?Jpez (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jpez: It may just be too long. This implies to me that staffs need shorter names (e.g. "Flt" for "Flute"). This is just a cursory glance though and I'm not terribly familiar with LilyPond. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jpez: This broken revision is a start. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
It's to do with the automatic margins that Lilypond provides. To fix this we have to adjust the margin with a layout block, which then requires us to use raw="1" and add \header and \midi blocks as well. Because it's quite arcane, I've done it for you. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Beeswaxcandle:! Also thanks to @Koavf:. Your help was in the right direction.Jpez (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Missing status colouring[edit]

I'm not seeing the colour coding of individual pages' status on this index page: . Does anyone know how to fix this? Chuntuk (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This happens from time to time. You just need to null edit the page. BethNaught (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It's happening more frequently for me now. I sometimes have to make a null edit every ten minutes to restore the status colorings. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Another method is to enable Clock and Purge gadget. This works as well. I've also seen quite a bit lately that the colours have disappeared. Humbug26 (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

How to mark up this page/image?[edit]

I'd like some guidance on how to mark up the image and its associated text on this page: It's a picture of a ship with various parts labelled with letters. The caption includes a key to those letters as well as a description of the image in general.

I can't faind any guidance in the help pages about captions. The page at Help:Adding images says to crop the image "to remove the text, including the caption" but I can't find any guidance anywhere about what to do to present that caption in the finished work - particularly when that caption contains more than a couple of lines of text. Maybe someone could point out a similar example in a completed work? Chuntuk (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I personally would simply put the caption as a block of text directly below the image. I've done a mockup on the OCR so you can see what I mean. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I adjusted your mockup to follow the format of the original more closely. As a newcomer to WS, I think it could really do with more guidance on images and their captions. The pages I've found - Help:Adding images and Wikisource:Image guidelines - concentrate on the technical details of how you improve the image and how you upload it to Commons. There's very little on how you incorporate that image (and its caption) into a source. Chuntuk (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

How to transclude into a single file?[edit]

How do I transclude this ( ) into a single file? -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The documentation for this is at Help:Beginner's guide to transclusion. You'll want to put it at Fear (Maugham). If you still have trouble, let me know and I'll show you.
Also: don't forget to put discussions into a new section, and include an edit summary so we know that you're not talking about User:Chuntuk's captions above :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status of British court decisions[edit]

Does anyone know the answer? I would like to add [4] while looking like {{PD-EdictGov}}. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I would call court judgements as edicts of government — three arms of government: the executive, the legislative body, and the courts. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
If you want to be really sure, write a polite formal letter to the judicial official or the court that issued the ruling, enquiring as to the copyright status, giving a concise explanation of why you want to republish on Wikisource. They would also be in the best position to advise if there are portions that would require redaction for legal reasons or reporting restrictions. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
{{PD-EdictGov}} does include "judicial opinions"; I think that is pretty explicit, isn't it? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
It's PD-EdictGov in the US; in the UK, it will be covered by Crown Copyright for 50 years, though it might be released under one of the Open Government Licenses.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The source website claims the Crown Copyright mentioning the Open Government License [5]. Do we have any tag for it? If is compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL?--Jusjih (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
It links to the {{OGL2}} license, which says "These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 and the Open Data Commons Attribution License, both of which license copyright and database rights. This means that when the Information is adapted and licensed under either of those licences, you automatically satisfy the conditions of the OGL when you comply with the other licence. The OGLv2.0 is Open Definition compliant."--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks to all answers. I have added Opinion of the Court delivered by Lady Paton in the Appeals under Sections 103 and 108 of the Extradition Act 2003 by Zain Taj Dean against (first) the Lord Advocate; and (second) the Scottish Ministers and relevant Scottish court papers linked to and from relevant Taiwanese court papers. This is my first time adding British court papers, so I would use the formal full names.--Jusjih (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Typo words.[edit]

In re-reading something I found some patterns of missed OCR errors/typos: User:ShakespeareFan00/Typo words

Would someone advise on how to add these to the typoscan script, so that they are appropriately highlighted. (It's a shame that it's not currently possible to have highlighting in the actual edit window, via a per user highlight or check list.). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: You can use this script or your amendment of the same, for auto-correction. Hrishikes (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Requesting to validate the remaining proofred page in a book[edit]

A very minor help request: Can anyone please validate this page so that the book is completed? page 9. Thanks. — Ineuw talk 06:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope no-one agrees to do so, since the text on the page is untranscribed. Hesperian 06:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Transcription done. Hrishikes (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Page-spanning double reference[edit]

I am putting the endnotes of Index:The Mythology of All Races Vol 6 (Indian and Iranian).djvu on the relevant page namespaces for ease of the reader. One endnote has citation on two pages. The second page (see here) naturally is showing error message, the reference being on the previous page. But on transclusion here, the citations are coming up fine. Is there any alternate method to resolve the error message issue on the page namespace? With thanks in advance, Hrishikes (talk) 11:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Three imperfect choices. 1) Separate the references so the same appears twice. 2) If you don't like the error, wrap the ref in <includeonly>; or 3) ignore the error message in Page ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I have opted for includeonly. Hrishikes (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
GMTA. That is how I handle them. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Is Brexit letter in PD?[edit]

I wonder if we can create the "Brexit letter", written by British PM the other day, i.e. is it in public domain? Because the PD-UKGov template seems to only cover works from before 1967? Or am I seeing something wrong? Thanks. --Matija (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Matija: It is published under a free licence (conditional, so not public domain so to speak) at and the site says those pages are {{OGL}} [6]. So use that licence and it should be fine at Commons and here. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Portion of book not showing up in page namespace[edit]

I am facing a peculiar problem with Index:The Bird of Time.djvu. Djvu page 19 onwards, the scanned pages are not showing up in page namespace. These pages were previously visible. At Commons, File:The Bird of Time.djvu is present, but clicking on the original file link shows error message that the file is absent. Clicking on the image link at page namespace here also shows absence of the file, for any page. Any solution? Hrishikes (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I have also tried re-uploading the file, after downloading from IA. This also cannot be done, error message saying that the file in the internal storage backends is in an inconsistent state. Hrishikes (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
This looks like some sort of file amage or upload error. The pages you mention are not showing up at Commons either when I try to view those pages. Were they previously visible at Commons or just at IA? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: These pages were visible till yesterday. Pages created upto that time (even pages far ahead in the index) are still coming up with the scan on the right side. The file corruption problem has come up today only. Hrishikes (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Have you asked at Commons? This looks like a problem at their end rather than here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Asked here. Hrishikes (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: It could be a thumbnailing issue, or of course, something else. When it is the day or the day after the MW update release, it is always worth checking the mediawiki release documentation to see what happened in the latest release that may have an impact. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
In this case mw:MediaWiki_1.29/wmf.18 doesn't show anything particularly relevant for keywords "image", "thumbnail" or "djvu". — billinghurst sDrewth 05:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: The problem is that, the original file at has disappeared or become inaccessible. It was accessible till my proofreading of p18 today morning. Hrishikes (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Can you just upload afresh from the file: page? See if that resolves the issue rather than worry about the mechanics. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Overwriting the file by re-uploading is not allowed, error message saying that the file is in an inconsistent state in the internal storage backends. But I can try uploading under a different name, then moving the index and the pages to the new location. Should I go for this? Hrishikes (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Whole thing is corrupt and usually takes forever to get things fixed through the backend. I have uploaded to a new name and moved the pages here. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. More such cases are occurring, vide phab:T161836. Hrishikes (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


So Samuel Laing (1812–1897) and his father Samuel Laing (1780–1868) were both authors. Junior had an author page Samuel Laing; I have created author pages for both: Samuel Laing (1812–1897) and Samuel Laing (1780–1868) and moved the contents of Samuel Laing to Junior’s page. How do I do a disambiguation? Do I merely write over the redirect on Samuel Laing with {{disambig}} and the two authors listed? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Umm, no. The inbound author page links need to be updated. To note that we use hyphens rather than ndash. Anyway, all Yes check.svg Done . — billinghurst sDrewth 03:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Asking for comments and some help on three possible book index layouts[edit]

  1. Using the Multicol template. This layout is closest to the original.
    1. I am unable to add hanging indents because the {{Hanging indent}} template breaks it up to paragraphs, and the style="padding-left:1.0em; text-indent:-1.0em;" as a parameter option in the {{Multicol}} didn't work for me.
    2. Cannot be anchored and linked to the subjects.
    3. Will not appear as a continuous block in the main namespace, even if it is wrapped with a <div> from beginning to end.
  2. A previous version of the above page in a table.
    1. Can be anchored and linked to the subjects.
    2. Not indented. Contains the description on each line.
    3. Appears continuous in the main namespace.
  3. The following page, using a table.
    1. Can be anchored and linked to the subjects.
    2. Contains one description per subject
    3. Appears continuous in the main namespace.
    4. Uses ·················· instead of double quotes.

Your comments are welcome. — Ineuw talk 02:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

D. None of the above. I've dealt with a similar index at Page:Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 1.djvu/509 ff. Transcluded to Ante-Nicene Christian Library/Index of Subjects (Volume 1). Mpaa did the bot-work to put in the links once the pages had been validated. The thing is messy enough as it is without doing it as a table. Definitely don't do it in columns—that's just a printer's artefact to ensure it doesn't go over too many pages. Makes it un-usable in the mainspace and the pretties are less important than the function. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
+1 to BWC's comment. Phe also has such an index linking script though expects the page to be validated prior to running it through. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Plus use anchors, and something like {{compactTOCalpha}} in the notes section. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the valuable input. Now on to the planning stage. — Ineuw talk 03:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

A quick related question. For Page:The Book of Scottish Song.djvu/615, would the most appropriate template be Template:Dotted TOC page listing? I'm struggling to find guidance on index pages, or a more suitable template. Sam Walton (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I personally would use {{TOC row 2dot-1}}, which allows all entries to be in a single table element, over {{Dotted TOC page listing}} which creates a separate table element for each line... but both will have the desired visual effect, so you can use {{Dotted TOC page listing}} if you prefer. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I would recommend against using any templates for the index to that work. That will be a massive index and too many template calls from a single transcluded page will break the system. It's better to use a table than a template in a listing of this size. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Index:A History and Defence of Magna Charta .djvu[edit]

Checking this file, it is missing the last few pages. This copy has the missing pages and looks cleaner. Can I just replace/update the current file or is it easier for (someone else to) replace the missing pages? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I would just upload the better scan over the bad scan. No transclusion has been done yet, so the only cleanup afterwards will be to adjust the page list; and that will be easier than repairing the scan file itself (plus the scan will be better). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Commons also has two pdf scans: see here. Hrishikes (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Is it desirable to use the first edition? The other uploaded scans are 2nd ed. Zoeannl (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@Zoeannl: I usually try to use the last available PD edition, so that latest annotations are available to the reader. But in this case, the first edition probably has historical value, also typographical peculiarities. Being such a museum case, it should be preferred, I think; although there is no bar against the 2nd ed used as a separate version. Hrishikes (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Decorative images[edit]

I'm looking at Illustrations of China and Its People vol. I., and noticed this page has a header image tagged as needing to be included. I cropped, rotated, and B&W'd the header (you can now find it at File:Illustrations of China and Its People Header.png), but wanted to clarify how and when such images are included before doing so. Should this definitely be included? What about the small floral triangle on page 5, or the image on page 10? What about the design around the dropped letter on page 7? I guess we can't include all drawn elements of a book, but is there guidance on where the line for inclusion lies? I noticed Wikisource:Image guidelines, which says "Decorative elements found in the original, designs around initial letters, dingbats, and other ornaments" can be included, but I wondered if anyone had some more practical advice. Sorry for all the examples and long post. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no universal consensus, but we tend to include those sorts of floral decorations. Some editors, like myself, always want them included in our copy, but I have seen other editors consider them superfluous from time to time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Thanks! The image seems to have come out quite small on the page. Does that seem ok? Sam Walton (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: It will work for that instance, although it should be a bit larger. Grabbing images from the original file (of suitable size) and them editing them is an art unto itself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The image itself is 1,176 × 205, I'm just not sure to what degree we should fudge the render size, Image Guidelines says not to specify if possible. Sam Walton (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I either leave the image as a [frameless] thumbnail (users can click on the image/enlarge as they wish), or I eyeball it based on the proportion in the original... But I usually shy away from making the image larger than 375 or 400px (due to mobile rendering, etc.). Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: I ignore the beasts as being useless and often just hard and rubbish to reproduce. They are not the works of the authors, and are typographic niceties, especially in non-fiction works. I may have a different opinion for an artistic work where they are certainly part of the reproduction. Rider: Where they are initials for drop capitals, they are clearly within the work, whether it is artistic or not. unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC).

Password query[edit]

I have a universal Wikimedia account. Does it not work for this project? I've tried to log in and keep getting the message that my password is incorrect. Since I can get into every other Wikimedia project with that password, I know it is correct. Help! 04:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

If you are logged into your account from elsewhere, you shouldn't even need to be logging in, the system should just connect your account. This site is no differently configured than elsewhere and should e working like those wikis. Note: always check your cookies, and other browser settings. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking for a floating {{FIS}} example which contains a table definition[edit]

If anyone used the {{FIS}} template with a table definition inserted, please provide a link to the page. I need to offset a table with the text flowing around it unbroken. I made one in PSM once, but lost my link to the page and the documentation for the template is very cryptic. Thanks in advance. — Ineuw talk 18:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Try Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 27.djvu/619? 19:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Thank you stranger, whoever you are. — Ineuw talk 04:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ineuw: It would be the person sometimes known as AuFCL. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I suspected that after asking my uncle "IAL" aka., "IP address Lookup". — Ineuw talk 18:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

TOCStyle blues[edit]

What have I done wrong here? Zoeannl (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Zoeannl: Done Hrishikes (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Multiple copyright tags[edit]

I just uploaded and transcluded a short work, The Right to Affirm, by Charles Bradlaugh. I marked it as {{PD/1923|1891}} because this does apply to Bradlaugh. However because the work quotes the whole of the Oaths Act 1888, and this is nearly half the work, I think the relevant template for expired crown copyright, {{PD-UKGov}}, should be displayed. (I could have just slapped {{PD-1923}} on there, but this is also unsatisfactory because the work really is PD worldwide, according to our copyright tags at least.) Moreover I think it needs to be explained this tag applies only to the Oaths Act.

What I tried to do was something like this:

{{collapse top|Copyright information}}

'''For the work by Bradlaugh:'''


'''For the Oaths Act, 1888:'''


{{collapse bottom}}

but it didn't work because the tags float to the bottom.

Can anybody help? Or should I just give up on this? Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@BethNaught: Copyright tags display at the base of the page, not inline. BTW you could consider using {{license container begin}}{{license container end}} and I think that it takes supplementary text. unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) .
@Billinghurst: I deduced that much ;) Thank you, your solution worked. I had no idea that template existed. BethNaught (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Their usage is more usual in Author namespace as our guidance for works is generally is apply one copyright tag. I have added a usage section to the bottom of Help:Copyright tags and mentioned the two container templates. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The most frequent use of double copyright notices I experience is with translated works. For that we have {{translation license}}. Should the Help:Copyright tags page have a complete example, or was the example on the Help page deliberately set as is it currently is? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Differences between templates[edit]

Would someone kindly explain the difference between {{small scan link}} and {{scan}}? One generates words and the other, a graphic; but is the purpose to be the same, in indicating those projects which are to be proofread. This may be old for some of you, but for someone new to the party, I don't want to break/interfere with any background uses for these. Humbug26 (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

"small scan link" was introduced to show that a while we may not have the work finished, that people could contribute to its transcription, we would generally remove that link once a work is transcribed as the scan can be accessed through source tab and page links. "scan" was an imported template from another WS that utilised it and the contributor clearly liked it. Scan has different display attributes. There is no official position as we have not had that discussion, and while we each will have personal preferences … <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 00:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

An encounter with an unknown (by me) chemical notation[edit]

At the bottom of this page there are tiny math symbols (+ and -) on top of the formulas. Perhaps someone knows how to format insert them? — Ineuw talk 07:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Unicode doesn't support operators above like that, but instead ions are usually typeset like this: H+ + Cl-. LaTeX would normally need an additional package such as chemformula, which our math module doesn't support; instead I'd use (additionally using \mathrm to remove the italicization that generally indicates that they are variables, which they aren't).—Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Much gratitude for the new info. Never too old to learn something new. — Ineuw talk 20:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ineuw: N.B. <ce> tag: "math" for chemical formulæ; e.g. <ce>\overset{^+}{H} + \overset{^-}{Cl}</ce> renders like . 10:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Whoa, I had no idea that <ce> was a thing. I would still use instead of , however. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. This additional, invaluable information should be placed in the WS documentation. My proverbial hat is tipped to acknowledge all the savants of Wikisource. And, @Beleg Tâl: could you please elaborate on your choice of use? Just curious, because knowledge has a liberating effect. — Ineuw talk 20:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Three reasons:
  1. Consistency, since you still have H+ in the Unicode transcription.
  2. Aesthetics, since it doesn't mess with the line height as much.
  3. Standardization, since is the normal notation for ions. Replacing a difficult-to-render notation with a simpler and more standard one is a common practice on Wikisource, such as using ¼ instead of 1/4, or standard references for footnotes. These are just formatting changes of course; this should never be done if the result is an actual change to the intended usage of the author.
Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Three good reasons, and it is just easier. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose FFS: Are we reproducing or interpreting the scans. Make up your minds! (Hint: copyright only protects one choice…not the one you appear to be making…)
Documentation (of sorts) of <ce> (technically obsolete per note here; use <chem> instead): m:Help:Displaying_a_formula#Chemistry. 03:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "copyright only protects one choice"; copyright gives us the right to do either way, to fold, spindle and mutilate the original in any way we feel like. We're not reproducing the scans; Commons is doing that. We're transcribing them, which requires interpretation, which sometimes involves complex choices about how to render something that doesn't fit exactly into our system.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Problems with File:Special 301 Report 2014.pdf[edit]

I see strange errors with File:Special 301 Report 2014.pdf:

  • when seeing proofread pages of the index, the images of the pages are not displayed, only proofread text is shown;
  • when viewing the file (as here on En-WS, or on the Commons) the pages are displayed as empty;
  • additionally to viewing the file, if trying to see alternative resolutions (any from Other resolutions: 185 × 240 pixels | 371 × 480 pixels | 464 × 600 pixels | 593 × 768 pixels | 1,275 × 1,650 pixels.), strange errors are displayed, for example:
Error generating thumbnail

Error creating thumbnail: Reading profile /etc/firejail/mediawiki-converters.profile Reading profile /etc/firejail/mediawiki-converters.profile �]0;firejail /usr/bin/convert -depth 8 -quality 95 -resize 185 - /tmp/transform_efeb80e7e64d.jpg �convert: no decode delegate for this image format `' @ error/constitute.c/ReadImage/501. convert: no images defined `/tmp/transform_efeb80e7e64d.jpg' @ error/convert.c/ConvertImageCommand/3210. Parent pid 48742, child pid 48744 Parent is shutting down, bye... 

Can anyone tell—what is that, and what could be done with that? --Nigmont (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm having the same issue with Index:Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt.pdf; I thought it was a problem with the file, but now it appears to be a problem with all PDF files. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Reported to Phabricator. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Thank you very much for handling the problem and registering the issue! Now waiting the solution. Regards, Nigmont (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Nigmont: reported as resolved, there is the requirement to flush the thumbnail cache. Please use the purge link on the Index: pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the issue has been resolved (I have checked Special 301 Report 2014.pdf, and also Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt.pdf), I confirm. --Nigmont (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

What women are educated for‎ needs to be transcluded[edit]

Would some kind soul who has a little time, help GinnevraDubois migrate the recent instalment from the transcription done in Index:Once a Week Volume V.djvu to the main ns. I cannot get to this for numbers of hours. Thanks if you can. Oh, and probably put as subpages of the parent work. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Poem tag across page breaks[edit]

Is it possible to use the poem tag across page breaks? For example when a poem crosses over to the next page? Jpez (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. But keep the begin/end poem tags within the edit box and not in the header/footer. Even though your poem continues onto the next page, you will still need to close first/subsequent pages with </poem> and begin with <poem>. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jpez:If your issue was with the added line space rendered after the first line, that was due to the bc/s template not being on its own line. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I was adding the peom tag in the footer/header space. I was also wondering about the space below the first line, nice to find a solution for this also. Thanks! Jpez (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

formatting quotation marks within drop-initial[edit]

Can someone please remind me again how to format regular sized quotation marks when using drop initial? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

There's a helpful guide at Template:Dropinitial#Use with quotes. Essentially: use {{float left}} or the fl parameter of {{dropinitial}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I should have thought to look there first... lazy brain tonight... Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

A question about the Hebrew Accent Ole[edit]

I've been working through the early parts of the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon. The page I'm hung up on is [7]. I've been able to get all the various Hebrew letters and specialized diacritical marks to work except for one. Near the bottom of the page, there's a word (pronounced BA-yin) where I need to get a Hebrew accent named "Ole" [8] over the B (Bet). If anyone knows of a specific editor who has a lot of experience with making Hebrew-language texts display in Wikisource, I may need to go bother that particular person. Alephb (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Alephb: Like this, ב֫ ? Hrishikes (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Thanks! That was quick. For now I used copy-paste to get that into the appropriate spot. For the future, how did you call that up? I've been using various keyboard shortcuts to call up the rest, but somehow I can't seem to figure out what to do for ole. Alephb (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Alephb: I use and its sister language keyboards to do this kind of thing, and then copy/paste into the Page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle:. That's perfect. I'll use that for anything I can't do through the regular keyboard. Alephb (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The other option in Windows is Babelmap which also combines characters with diacritics. — Ineuw talk 00:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Built in script is not working[edit]

This page is not functioning at all, as much as I would like it to, and could code viewing be turn on or implemented. — Ineuw talk 00:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Did you see m:TemplateScript? —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Umm, @Ineuw: please explain "is not working" in a more helpful way. What are you expecting to see there? What are you expecting to see there and are not seeing there. My quick look at your common.js file would have me expecting the page to report nothing imported for you. I haven't drilled down through all your .js pages that you may have linked, however, I don't expect to see anything. Can I point you to mw:How to report a bug for some tips. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: I don't think that my issues relates to the Pathoschild tools I am having problems with.
@Billinghurst: My bad, for being so late with the clarification, but I have a good excuse. I was inundated with software and hardware problems for these past several weeks.
As for the problem, I will try to clarify it, and assembled the components of the issue and uploaded this image to clarify.
Part 1 of the uploaded image illustrates Pathoschild's link in my common.js. Part 2 of the image displays the group of six tools this script places on the left sidebar when a page is in edit mode. Of the six tools, I only use the "Clean up OCR tool", and the rest I wanted to hide. Alongside the title "Page tools" of this group is the link to part 3, which is the Special:TemplateScript page. I thought that this page controls the display of the six tools on the editing page sidebar. But, these controls don't work. So, I wanted to see the code behind the controls, but being a "special" page, I couldn't. And that is the reason for my cry plea for help. — Ineuw talk 01:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Correction in table of contents[edit]

Is it possible (how?) to mark a correction to a table of contents using the {{Dotted TOC line}} template? Example here: the page "193" should be "194". I can make the link point to the right page by changing the djvupageoffset argument (and I did), but I can't use {{SIC}} in the djvupage, can I? Jellby (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jellby: Done, please check. Hrishikes (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Book stat[edit]

Hi. Is there any template or command, so when we write it in front of the name of a book or use the name of the book as an argument for it, the result shows how many of its pages are validated, how many are proofread and etc. exactly in front of it? --Yousef (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Yoosef Pooranvary: You can do it with {{Special:IndexPages|key=xxx}}. For the key, enter <font color=white>keyname</font> on the concerned index page (below the pagelist). Can also be done manually with {{Progress}} or {{PageStatus}}. Hrishikes (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Thank you. But would you please show me a real example of the first solution which you just mentioned? and also there is a problem with my home wiki which is the Persian wikisource. The stats shown here: [9] do not match the reality. You can check the first one in the list and see it for yourself. Is there any kind of purge command or should I just wait? --Yousef (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@Yoosef Pooranvary: See example here, with key WS10. Hrishikes (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: I appreciate your help but the problem is that the stats are not real even here on the English wikisource. --Yousef (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@Yoosef Pooranvary: -- I think you will find that the stat is real in the example I gave you. Purging the cache of the index pages involved is requied, I think. It is done by a bot in bn Wikisource; so the stat is real. Hrishikes (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Inline tables and multiline braces[edit]

I'm trying to proofread so that it matches the original. This is proving really hard, because it has multiline braces in the middle of a line. I found a Wikipedia page Advanced table formatting which showed how you can nest a table within a table to get an in-line table, which works great for getting it all one line, but uses html markup and not the {| etc wiki table markup.

This seems to break the nice {{brace table parameters}} template that makes the braces line up properly. When I try and hard code what is in brace table parameters it doesn't come out right and I don't know why.

Can anyone help? I'm at my wit's end here. Kastrel (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I would put the whole line as a single table, like so:
His walking-stick was cane , the brother of a bell
a belle
Cain Abel.
Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Brilliant, thank you so much! Kastrel (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Onlysection of LST[edit]

I am having some problem with the onlysection parameter of this page. I cannot figure out where I am doing wrong. Hrishikes (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Solved. Hrishikes (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Joining / resuming lists[edit]

Is there any way I can transclude partial lists from different pages into a single continuous list? See User:Jellby/Sandbox for an example, User:Jellby/Sandbox/Joined shows what I would like. I'm not so much interested in that User:Jellby/Sandbox/List 2 shows the correct numbering (but it would be a plus) as in that the joined list is seamless. The code with labeled sections would work, I guess, if sections worked inside templates (and if it were working in the sandbox). I'd like to avoid hard-coding the list labels, but I could use HTML code instead of templates if it works and it's "guaranteed" to give the same formatting (i.e., if I can mix HTML and template lists)... Jellby (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like your LST version works. I would think that new templates {{ordered list/s}} and {{ordered list/e}} would otherwise be needed for what you are trying to accomplish. You can, however, mix and match HTML and template syntax. You can also play around with <noinclude> and see if that helps. Finally, you may find that the <pages> extension joins things together better than {{direct transclusion}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jellby: Do note that you can still use crosshatches and give a dot point in number
  1. is generated by #<li value=3>
Though use of old-fashioned #LST should still work well, it still is a nicely though not neatly hugely extensible tool. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Does it work? I see it blank (note that the "Desired" section is just hard-coded, not trancluded), and in real pages it just eats up some text. The documentation says it should not work within templates, so I can't use it access part of an ordered list template. But I have indeed found out that I can use HTML coding, and although not very pretty, I have something that "works" (Tales from the Arabic/Contents). How would I use <pages> in a case like that? (For transcluding content directly from scanned/OCR'd pages, I've already used it a lot.) unsigned comment by Jellby (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2017.
@Jellby, @Billinghurst: The above comment is wrong. LST cannot 100% work in this situation due to the fact each use of <pages> wraps its contents in <div>…</div> pairs (hard-coded) and there is—currently— no way to get around this. Best you can do is to try to limit yourself to cases where the inserted divs are least disruptive.

This issue was raised a long time ago but dropped due to general disinterest. 06:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I said #LST (per mw:Extension:Labeled Section Transclusion), not <pages> — billinghurst sDrewth 10:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

English pages on multilingual portal[edit]

I would like to ask before moving Buku Ibadat Luther (2006) and Immaculate Mary from multilingual old Wikisource to be sure being copyright-okay.--Jusjih (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, doesn't oldws have the same copyright policies that we have? Or are you just double-checking with the more active community? Second, I would have posted this in WS:CV, but it doesn't really make a difference.
Immaculate Mary's history is described here. The version at oldws is an anonymous 1952 work. (Other versions: Any attribution to Brian Foley that you might come across refers to verses 2-7 of this version; the version by Jeremiah Cummings is PD but not recognizable, see page 12 of this book. The version here is PD and certainly hostable.) I can find no info on the "Perpetual Help Novena" version, but it is almost certainly copyvio.
I don't know what "Buku Ibadat Luther" means or what 2006 has to do with it, but that text is already hosted on enws. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Immaculate Mary's anonymous 1952 work will be sent to Canadian Wikilivres, but the Perpetual Help Novena version will be deleted.--Jusjih (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Apparent transclusion problem[edit]

I can't work out what I've done wrong on How to Get Strong and How to Stay So (1899)/Chapter 12 and How to Get Strong and How to Stay So (1899)/Chapter 13, but no text is showing up. Yet How to Get Strong and How to Stay So (1899)/Appendix 1 is fine. All I did was copy/paste and adjust page range. The header is fine, so must be the pages command. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it may be some kind of damage present in the DjVu file. If I visit Page:How to Get Strong (1899).djvu/534, there is no "Next" tab to continue to the following page. There may be other factors in play, such as the sheer number of pages or template load, but the absence of the tab for the Next page is unexpected behavior that may mean the file itself has issues to be corrected. It wouldn't be the first time we've had such a problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Bother! And on top of the OCR offset. This was an IA Upload conversion to djvu rather than a direct upload. I think I'll have to upload the pdf version and get the pages moved across. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

"Expression error: Unexpected > operator" on creation of an author page[edit]

Can someone please advise why I am getting this error on this page? Thanks — Ineuw talk 00:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ineuw: the {{PD/1923}} template requires a parameter and doesn't fail gracefully when the parameter is missing. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: I had an offline copy of a very old author template used to create the PSM contributors. From before the Noachian flood and at a time when most of the PSM authors departed way before 1923. Now it is corrected. Thanks. — Ineuw talk 02:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Main namespace display 4 is misaligned[edit]

The Page namespace and Main namespace differ both in width and column alignment. The main namespace Display 4 column width should be the same as Display 2 (540px). The difference being only the font. Consequently, I set my page namespace to match the Display 4 as close as possible as shown in this image. — Ineuw talk 04:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

But you set lots of formatting into the Page, then set a whole additional set of formatting by using both Display 4 and PSM formatting in the Main namespace. With three competing sets of formatting instructions applied to the same content, it's no wonder the display is off. Best practice is to place one set of formatting instructions in just one location or the other, not multiple formatting in both. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Thanks for looking at the code, and apologies for the delay in replying. This is not worth to waste your time on. I removed the contents of commmon.css and there was no change except the character size was reduced so much as to make the edit text illegible. So, I restored the code which enlarges the text, and left out which has no longer relevance because of the Wikimedia changes over time. However, if one selects Display 2, then there is no problem and Display 4 is based on that. — Ineuw talk 03:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not common.css that's the issue. You have put a div tag in the Page namespace with lots of specific formatting, then added two layers of formatting in the Main namespace when the page is transcluded. Those three sets of formatting conflict with each other. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: There is no div in the main namespace. If you are referring to {{PSMLayoutTop}} it is a redirect to the Display layout 4. Also, the same page displays properly when setting the Display layout to 2. I tested this by commenting out PSMLayoutTop and PSMLayoutBottom. — Ineuw talk 23:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I have checked the edit history, and at no point have you commented out PSMLayoutTop or PSMLayoutBottom. You inserted <noinclude>, but when that tag is used in the Main namespace, it does nothing; it only functions when the content is transcluded to another location. I'm sorry that I have not been able to help you, but I think this would involve much more explaining about CSS and wiki mechanics than I have time for. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
My apologies for the confusion. I logged in as IneuwPublic to test it. I do that on occasion when I have a problem and don't want to change my setup. I picked Chapter IV and here is the edit history. I used the HTML comment out method < ! -- -- > If you ask why I switched to Chapter IV, it was an oversight and never expected it to come up in this discussion.
All chapters have the same problem. I also pointed out that switching to display 2 there is no issue. Display 2 is the basis for display 4. When I created that work it was perfectly aligned.
The problem lies in the .css definition of the display layout and my problem is that I can't find the Mediawiki css which handles the display layouts. The history of which would tell me immediately what happened. I understand you are too busy and you can't help and thanks for your time. — Ineuw talk 07:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I found the display settings. It's in the MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js. — Ineuw talk 07:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleting Google cover pages from PDFs[edit]

I have a bunch of PDF Google scans from which I need to remove the cover page before upload. I tried using on macOS, but that ballooned the size from 25.4MB to 111MB. Anyone else seen this problem? Ideas on how to solve it? Suggestions for other ways to delete the pages without triggering a fourfold expansion of size? --Xover (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Xover: I've been using PDF Split and Merge for this kind of operations on PDF files. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Beleg Tâl. I'm a little allergic to Java-based tools for various reasons. But I did do some more Googling, and found that the problems with are widespread: Sierra PDF Problems Get Worse in 10.12.2 (in addition to the ballooning size, it also tends to strip out the OCR layer!). So, deciding that a fix for was unlikely in the near future, I bit the bullet and bought PDFPen from Smile Software (somewhat expensive, but convenient, and I've had good experiences with their iPad software), which uses a different PDF engine than the built-in one from macOS that uses. And the results would have been "spectacular" except they were just exactly what you would expect: marginal change in PDF file size when deleting the Google cover page. In any case, the takeaway is: don't use on macOS to edit PDFs unless you know for certain that the major bugs have been fixed. --Xover (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible donation of patents and drawings[edit]

I'm not active in wikisource, so not quite sure where to post this query. I'm an OTRS agent and fielding an email from a relative of someone who is associated with Tesla Edison and others and has a "box full of patents and drawings", with over 200 inventions. Is this someone this person could contact to find out whether this material would be suitable for wikisource? I'll point them to this discussion but will also help in facilitating exchange of email addresses.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Formatting final version[edit]

This relates to Trials of the Slave Traders Samo, Peters and Tufft. At the moment everything gets centred after page 40. Not quite sure why this is? Can this be fixed. Also any help in finishing the item off would be very much appreciated. Leutha (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The centering problems were from page 39. I've amended that and it seems to be OK now. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

About proofreading[edit]

I'm new to this so - I found a book that I'm really enjoying proofreading but I can't do all the pages because some have illustrations. My question is - how do I let you know when I've finished what I can so you can have someone do the 10 or so pages I can't? Do you automatically get notified when a book is done? I'm working on Aunt Jo's Scrap-bag by Louisa May Alcott and I only have about 20 pages left. Thanks, unsigned comment by Mkjames100 (talk) .

Hi Mkjames100. Welcome to our little site, and great that you are finding somewhere to contribute, thanks for what you are doing. Help:Page status gives some information about your questions, and also Help:Beginner's guide to proofreading which has pointers to Template:missing image. Pages with images that need to be replicated get tagged with {{missing image}} and marked as problematic, if there is text and you have proofread that text, then a comment into summary is helpful. Re completion and notification, who is the "you"? Not exactly certain what you are expecting/wanting.

When an index page has its proofreading status changed, ie. Index:Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag, Volume 5.djvu there is categorisation that changes. Normally we have good watching on recent changes, so someone generally knows and assists if it is required, or we are pinged here. There are numbers of processes that take place, so depending which it is, will set of triggers, though not announcements. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Your incorrect schedules[edit]

Just wondered if these are to be altered so that the columns refer to the data supplied?

Yours, Neil, South Africa.unsigned comment by (talk) .

please provide a link to the page at which you are seeing issues. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

My first djvu[edit]


I've uploaded my first .djvu to Commons yesterday and I've created the Index page for that book today: Index:A literal translation of the Saxon Chronicle.djvu. Can someone have a look and tell me whether I've made mistakes? Ælfgar (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks OK to me.— Mpaa (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The Betrothed (Manzoni) Transclusion boo-boo[edit]

Advice please. I have been validating for so long that I've lost sight of transclusion.

This book has Roman numeral chapters, not identified. I used AuxTOC on both main:ns and index:ns as Roman numerals. But then I created Chapter I and Chapter II as Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. My question is: Should I continue as I've started, adjusting the AuxTOC's, or should I move subpages 1 and 2 to subpages I and II? My inclination is to continue as I've started but if that goes against style guidelines, I can try to make the appropriate changes. Any and all comments welcomed. Humbug26 (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to continue as you started. I know some people would use Arabic numbers instead of Roman regardless of usage within the text, though I don't think it matters either way. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll continue on as I started. Humbug26 (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


Same approach in two locations on this page with DIFFERING results, There should be ONE line between the end of one section and the heading for the next. Can someone suggest an approach that will work CONSISTENTLY?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

And whilst that's solved, adding {{nop}} elsewhere produces spurious lines on transclusion! The Cutters' Practical Guide (1898)/Part 1/The System. Please fix the parser so there is ONE CONSISTENT approach used, so I don't have to continually run around playing "hunt the obscure syntax". I am getting very tired of having do this.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's pretty annoying that EasyLST adds empty paragraphs when there's a blank line above the section marker. EasyLST is just a JS gadget; it isn't real markup, and it converts to normal LST markup before being saved. That's probably why the behaviour is erratic. I suggest that you bring it up at Phabricator if it's causing you a lot of problems. I usually just leave off the preceding blank line as you have done in your final version of the page. Also: if you put a section tag at the top of the page, the behaviour will at least be consistent.
I also reproduced your problematic version at Page:Sandbox.djvu/6 in case people want to investigate further.
As for your second question, I don't see any problems with {{nop}} on a quick perusal of the linked page; can you be more specific as to where the problem is? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Please take it back to basics. NOP statement is a sneaky placeholder that stops the collapse of a line where mediawiki tries to collapse multiple terminating lines. It is a cheat by us to retain these linebreaks when we transclude multiple pages. As it is a sneak, its behaviour completely relates to how and where it is used. If it is giving different behaviour it is most likely being used differently. Above links are too inspecific to comment for the reported use.
And we have no means of knowing who is using EasyLST or if it is being used as when the code is saved it is done with tags. So Mediawiki and the LST extension are working perfectly and as expected, though it sounds as if a local gadget is not doing so. @Inductiveload, @Samwilson: are you are able to investigate the gadget, and is using phabricator ticket the best means to do this? I am going to hazard a guess that a change in mediawiki general behaviour has resulted in this quirk. [I don't see an issue, though I use old-fashioned section tags and format assiduously around them.] — billinghurst sDrewth 02:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know it's anything to do with the MediaWiki parser/backend (not my area), but from a quick look at the Sandbox rev, I have a clue. Using EasyLST does make it less obvious, as you don't get to see the <section> markup being sent to the server.
With no section at the start of the page:
lorem ipsum 

<section begin="diagram40" />{{c|'''Single space above here'''}}

<section end="diagram40" />
<section begin="diagram41" />{{c|'''Double space above here'''}}
With a "dummy" section at the start of the page (EasyLST or not) and it's consistent:
<section begin="dummy" />
Lorem ipsum

<section end="dummy" />
<section begin="diagram40" />{{c|'''Double space above here'''}}

<section end="diagram40" />
<section begin="diagram41" />{{c|'''Double space above here'''}}
Or, not using EasyLST and doing it manually, without newlines between <section> tags:
Lorem ipsum

<section begin="diagram40" />{{c|'''Single space above here'''}}

<section end="diagram40" /><section begin="diagram41" />{{c|'''Single space above here'''}}
I presume from this that the MW parser is removing the <section> tags and leaving the newlines after them, when they exist. That could well be a parser issue, especially if it's changed recently and suddenly. EasyLST hasn't changed in years, AFAIK, so it isn't that EasyLST is adding newlines where it used to run-on the same line - it's always done that. Now, the problem here is that if you manually remove the newline between begin and end section tags, EasyLST will put it back on the next edit by anyone with it on.
I don't see any commits in the proofreadpage extension in the last year that should have changed this - I am not familiar with the backend code, but I imagine it would have been around here if anywhere.
A solution is to roll with what EasyLST does (newlines after all section tags begin and end) and simply don't but blank lines before the sections, as mentioned by Beleg Tâl above:
lorem ipsum 
## diagram40 ##
{{c|'''Single space above here'''}}
## diagram41 ##
{{c|'''Single space above here'''}}
Expanded by EasyLST to:
Lorem ipsum

<section begin="diagram40" />{{c|'''Single space above here'''}}
<section end="diagram40" />
<section begin="diagram41" />{{c|'''Single space above here'''}}
I suppose it could be possible to change EasyLST to not include the newlines after ## section_name ##, but that might be a surprise if it changes suddenly? It might be possible to do it transparently without causing any "null edits" on pages to change the wikitext? Too early in the morning to get my head round that! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 05:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Linking to French WS[edit]

I am trying to link to a work at the French WS at this page and another, but [[fr:La Cité chinoise|La Cité Chinoise]] does not seem to work. 1) Is my method incorrect? 2) Is it 'permissible' to wikilink to another language WS? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Re 1: The code [[fr:La Cité chinoise|La Cité Chinoise]] adds a sidebar interwiki (which is normally done by Wikidata now? Help:Interlanguage links is probably a bit out-of-date in that respect). For an in-line inter-language link in the text, use a prefixed colon: [[:fr:La Cité chinoise|La Cité Chinoise]]. Re 2: Seems like a perfect thing to link to me. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Thanks, and welcome back. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

<math></math> error cannot be found[edit]

There is a <math></math> statement which is a duplicate of another on the same page, but there is something wrong with it, and I cannot find the error. Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 70.djvu/455. Could someone with could take a look at it please? — Ineuw talk 04:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Yes check.svg Done I think... Mahir256 (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Much thanks. Do you know what was wrong with it? — Ineuw talk 06:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Looking at the diff, you missed a \right command. Mahir256 (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I never thought of using the diff. I should have quit earlier in the evening or, I should have matched it to the (nearly) identical formula that appeared previously on the same page. Thanks again.

Work has a wrong title[edit]

Could Johnson be moved? As you can see from [10] or [11], the correct title is Johnson v. Pannel's heirs, even though a lot of works (e.g. my first link) wrongly give it merely as Johnson v. as if it were a court case in which Johnson sued nobody. I'm familiar with Special:MovePage, but since I've never had reason to move a page here, I don't know if moving just one page might make a mess with other pages of which I'm unaware. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend, @Nyttend backup: Yes check.svg Done with all pages, and left a soft redirect at the root. Feel free to create a hard redirect for your other shortened title if you think it worthwhile. Worthwhile double checking enWP for outbound links to the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Running header lookup script problem[edit]

I've started working through Hazlitt's Political Essays and it would be very convenient to use the Running header lookup script to create the headers automatically . I have put the script on my common.js, but see nothing in the proofreading edit view. The first page I'd want to start using it is here. Celuici (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Celuici:, that's interesting, I didn't think my version of that tool would have been listed there still! I have updated it to use the TemplateScript framework like Phe's arabic-only version now does, and fixed a few more issues with it, as it's been rotting there for quite some time! It appears now to be working (look in the sidebar on the left). I tried it on your page - it won't work if you use the "center" and "right" params - the easiest and most common way to write it without a left parameter is {{running header||PREFACE|xi}}. I fixed page 15 and page 17 filled in OK.
Note for anyone using the old edit toolbar - this tool is now in the left sidebar. Shout if you value it very much in the toolbar as well, and I can put it back in the toolbar. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 00:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
It's working perfectly now, so thanks very much for looking into this. It's certainly a very useful tool! Celuici (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk Page Archive[edit]

Hey folks -- we have a lot of lengthy discussion going on at Translation: Genesis. So far the talk page has 68 entries, and more are probably coming, and they stretch back about ten years. Is there a way on Wikisource to set up an archive bot like we would have on Wikipedia, to sweep conversations that haven't been touched for, say, a month into a searchable archive? Thanks. Alephb (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You can use User:Wikisource-bot at the top of the talk page.— Mpaa (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. That should help. Alephb (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Possibly duplicated text[edit]

Is Reconstruction (The Atlantic Monthly) a duplicate of Reconstruction (Douglass)? They seem very similar if not competely identical. What is the process for raising this sort of issue on enWS (I have never really contributed here, so I don't know what the right procedure or forum is...) SJK (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It does appear to be a duplicate text from the same source. One was copy-pasted from a website where the text had been extracted, and the other is transcluded from a scanned copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for raising it, and raising it here is fine. We do allow the same work to appear where they are different editions/sources of the same work. Having a proper source and even better provenance is what we seek, as explained by EncycloPetey. It would seem that both should be moved to be subpages of The Atlantic Monthly with redirects from root. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Unexpected {{Chart}} template errors[edit]

On Page:The_Melanesians_Studies_in_their_Anthropology_and_Folklore.djvu/60, what should be quite a simple family tree chart is giving the following template redlinks.



Does anyone more experienced have any ideas, or have I done something wrong with my {{Chart}} syntax?


CharlesSpencer (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@CharlesSpencer: Check now. The chart template is erroneous, better not to use it. Hrishikes (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank for your help - I thought that {{Familytree}} was now deprecated and that {{Chart}} had replaced it, but Familytree plainly works here whereas Chart didn't! We have a validated page now. Thanks again. CharlesSpencer (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Requesting OCR help at mr.wikisource[edit]


At Marathi language mr.wikisource we have planned a student workshop tomorrow. We are looking for unicodification support from people using linux operating system. Since our usual voluntters to are not around.

  • Steps
    • Step 1: Download & install OCR4Wikisoource
    • Step 2: Google API
    • Step 3: API Enable
    • step 4: Change file config.ini fill URL link of the book to be OCRed then wikisource log in and pass word.
    • Step 5: use OCR4wikisource

Thanks & Regards

Mahitgar (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Thanks and regards

@Mahitgar: Requesting at Bengali Wikisource is likely to be more fruitful, they are regularly doing it. @Sumita Roy Dutta: -- Sumitadi, can you spare the time? Hrishikes (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

'non-free text'; plus validation[edit]

First proofreading nearly completed, with this exception -,_1998.djvu/239 The author was directly quoting a public policy statement by Shell, that has been excluded as 'non-free text'. Certainly it was not his own work! And the book still works without it - but it was written by them as a public statement, and is part of the original published document. What would you experienced people advise? Need to go ahead and publish on Wikisource before too long, as I'm beginning to realise how much else there is to do with respect to actual Wikipedia articles etc. (Plus photographs of research trip, and poems by now-deceased Nigerian co-author, deserving their own 'source' documents.)Susi Arnott (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Susi Arnott: Your proofreading is not as per scan. For example, on page 2 (title page) of the scan, you have added an image not present on the scan, the title of the work is also not as per scan. Hrishikes (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I've tried to explain this by pages. The original work was published separately in Nigeria and in UK, with different covers and titles and tiny print runs. The main author asked me to resolve the name issue for this online version. The pdf-turned-djvu scan was a bit muddled and the copyright creative commons work needed to go somewhere too, so it seemed most effective to have one 'front page'. Susi Arnott (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I can see why you want to do that, but the online copy should duplicate the print copy. The pages can't be validated unless they match.
To answer your question about the Shell policy: if the Shell policy is public domain or creative commons licensed by the original author(s), then you can include it. If not, then the {{text removed}} notice is exactly the correct approach. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much; this community is marvellous. Let me take the two 'front pages' from the poorly chosen original pdf, back to their scanned versions. The differences from any of the various printed copies mustn't get in the way of getting the contents online.

As for the Shell policy statement; can't find an original but also can't imagine it being 'copyrighted' by them??? Let me keep pushing the main author for his source, and let's see. There seems to be more work even once the upload is 'validated'. So much to learn!Susi Arnott (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

One last query - I assume the upload title 'Niger Delta Ecosystems - the ERA Handbook, 1998' can still stand, even if the 'printed' title on both 'front matter' pages of the uploaded scan is 'The ERA Handbook to the Niger Delta (Human Ecosystems of the Niger Delta). Or would you advise starting all over again?Susi Arnott (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The upload title is fine. (Also: it's easier to move an upload with a bad title than to start over!). The Shell policy is almost certainly copyrighted unless you have a good reason to believe otherwise. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again. I've validated :)
As for the Shell policy statement, I've asked for comments on the DearRich intellectual property blog too. It was stated in full in order to juxtapose with evidence from research on the ground; like a 'critique' of a novel!?!? But hey, if we can't resolve this in the next day or so it would be best to publish online omitting that text. (To be honest, if I worked for Shell I might fear that looked even worse! But the point is to be factual, not biased.)Susi Arnott (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The rest of the text can be published online omitting the text and then we can add the Shell policy afterwards. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Index:Mexico (1829) Volumes 1 and 2.djvu duplicate[edit]

Index:Mexico (1829) Volumes 1 and 2.djvu is an 1829 edition of the previous 1828 edition Index:Mexico_in_1827_Vol_1.djvu. The difference being both volumes are in one book and the titles are somewhat different, but it is the same publisher. Should this be deleted? — Ineuw talk 18:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to delete, as we do accept different editions of the same work. However, there often is less incentive to complete a second copy of the same work, unless it has significant differences. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. — Ineuw talk 22:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

John Hopkins University[edit]

Right now there are 16 entries in Wikisource with "John Hopkins University" (as opposed to "Johns Hopkins University") where can I find guidance as to when to correct them, when to put (sic) and when to leave them alone?Naraht (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Correct them only if the local Wikisource copy differs from the original publication as it was printed. That is, if the original printed text had "Johns" but we have "John", then it should certainly be corrected. You must compare against an original printed copy (or scan of such a copy) to do this.
Never insert a visible sic, but use {{SIC}} when the original publication had the misspelling. You can find documentation with that template.. The goal at Wikisource is to present publications as close to the original as is possible. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
On Wikisource we endeavour to copy source texts faithfully, and that means preserving typos. If the spelling "John Hopkins University" is used in a hosted work and the original source also spelled it that way, you can choose to either leave it alone or use the template {{SIC}} to mark it. If the spelling is used in a user-created work, such as a Portal or a user translation, you can correct it. Note: if the spelling "John Hopkins" is used in an original source, but the Wikisource copy says "Johns Hopkins", the Wikisource copy needs to be fixed to also spell it as "John Hopkins". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you *very* much. I have two more minor questions.
  1. In the case of "John Hopkins University" should the {{SIC}} go after the John or after University?
  2. Is there any way that I can mark something in a way that would keep me from finding it again? For example (and probably a bad idea, putting an empty <!-- --> in between the p and the k in Hopkins which (might?) cause it not to be found by a search).
I did have a few where they were in author templates, those seem to be ones which should be corrected.Naraht (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  1. You do it like this: {{SIC|John Hopkins University|Johns Hopkins University}} -> John Hopkins University.
  2. There isn't really a way to make it no longer searchable; besides, we do want people to be able to find the text when they search for it even if the text is spelled wrong.
Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to OCR books with multiple languages[edit]

The Aramaic/English dictionary fails badly with the Hebrew fonts. I see Hebrew books can be successfully OCRed at the Hebrew version of Wikisource. Is there a way to OCR multiple fonts/languages in the same book? unsigned comment by Dewwyd (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC).

Yes it is possible. Click the Google OCR button. If it does not give the desired result, save the page image and upload to Google Drive, then open with Google Docs. Hrishikes (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Dewwyd: If you don't have the Google-coloured OCR button, add the following line to your common.js page:
(This isn't available as a gadget on English Wikisource.) Sam Wilson 06:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. What is the difference between the colored OCR and the black one I see now?
Different OCR engine. The black one uses WMF-hosted Tesseract, the Googley one uses Google-hosted Cloud Vision API. The latter has limits on the number of images we can run through it in a month (but we're yet to be told off for doing too many). Sam Wilson 07:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

We all need validation[edit]

Niger Delta Ecosystems book is nearly there;,_1998.djvu/189 Is there an at-a-glance way to see which pages I can validate, and which I've proofread myself and must now leave for others to validate?Susi Arnott (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, under "Development (in beta)", and enable the gadget "Pages I can validate", and save. It will put borders on all the page links on Index:Niger Delta Ecosystems- the ERA Handbook, 1998.djvu and other Index pages: Red = page can be proofread, green = nothing to do, orange = checking in progress. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Brilliant, thank you!Susi Arnott (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Sadly I can't make this work, even following advice to 'purge'. Help with validation all the more welcome.Susi Arnott (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Susi Arnott: Check on another Index page; it may be that nothing's showing up because there's nothing that you can do on that one. If that's not working, and purging pages and purging your local browser cache isn't working, you could try opening up the javascript console in your browser (by pressing F12 usually) and seeing if there's any errors displayed there. I'd love to get that gadget working properly (@Billinghurst says there are some errors as well). Sam Wilson 23:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Samwilson: it must be a local issue, as I have checked at plWS and Beau's gadget still works there. I will see if I can see any obvious issues over the weekend, it may be we have a competing gadget in play. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: it works for me, and has done for years. Let me know if you want a hand debugging. I reckon we could build it into the proofreadpage extension instead, if we had a mind to. Sam Wilson 06:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Works for me today too. Probably caught up with our gadget issues when we had mw.util issues and things loading in the wrong order. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 12:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Susi Arnott: If it is a recent work where edits are recent, poke your nose into the related changes link in the left sidebar. There you will see what has been edited in the last thirty days with summary, and you should be able to pick what isn't yours among other editors. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This addition under the Index page 'discussion' tab did work - :The link above purges this Index talk page. To purge the Index page, the link is,_1998.djvu&action=purge To make it even easier, you can enable the "Clock and Purge" gadget under Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets in the "Interface" section, This will add a link in the top right corner that will purge whatever page you're on when you click on it. (It also displays the time in UTC). —Beleg Tâl (talk)Susi Arnott (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about pasting the link for the Index talk page - that wasn't very bright of me! I was trying to avoid triggering a purge on the Index page myself. There is an open Phabricator issue for this: T114318. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Great that's resolved. Back to the validation issue! Collective work to get the book this far, but I can't validate any more pages myself. Can the community help?Susi Arnott (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Using custom OCR[edit]

If I want to use my own OCR, what is the best way to bulk upload text? unsigned comment by Dewwyd (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2017‎ (UTC). Dewwyd (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The best way is to upload the book and then use this application. You will need Linux OS. For demo, see this video, after enabling subtitles. Hrishikes (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
But it looks like this forces me to use Google's OCR. I have my own. Do you know if/how I need to make a new BOT account? Dewwyd (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Dewwyd: Please sign your post by typing ~ 4 times. For bot approval, apply here. Hrishikes (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The documentation is terrible. I keep going in circles looking for how to make a bot account. Dewwyd (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Why would you need a Bot for OCR? As an alternative, every uploaded file get OCRed by and then, the text is available on request via 'OCR' icon in Page ns.— Mpaa (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
An generic automatic OCR will just produce trash on Fraktur or old-school blackletter, or many weird fonts, whereas there's commercial OCR for Fraktur and font training features on many OCRs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm a novice myself, and can't answer, but wondering in what form your original text now exists? Loose printed pages, a bound book; size, number of pages, colour or B&W, in what physical condition, etc. Susi Arnott (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons djvu and Source pdf[edit]

Niger Delta Ecosystems- the ERA Handbook, 1998 Uploaded this as pdf but realised issues, so then uploaded as djvu file. Made index page but can't get it to refer to djvu, only pdf. However, the djvu file is still extant on Commons. Can anyone help this beginner? Susi Susi Arnott (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Looking for this Index:Niger Delta Ecosystems- the ERA Handbook, 1998.pdf? which I'd done a first pass OCR trabscribe on. Can't garuntee all the scan/typing errors removed though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying; but my question was about what to do next. Presumably stick with the pdf, even though images are missing? And a beginner's guide or glossary of 'proofreading' would be great. (What the different commands mean, etc.) What happens if I've tagged a page as being 'proofread' and there are still problems? Thanks for your patience!

@Susi Arnott: Yes check.svg Done -- Index:Niger Delta Ecosystems- the ERA Handbook, 1998.djvu. Hrishikes (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again! Presumably I should now go ahead and start proofreading the djvu file - but what does this box mean: The text of this work needs to be migrated to Index:Niger Delta Ecosystems- the ERA Handbook, 1998.djvu Happy to put the hours in (Sunday is for Wiki now!), but would love to start from the right place :) Thanks everyoneSusi Arnott (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Susi Arnott: You'll notice that the transcription User:ShakespeareFan00 performed applied to the pages linked to the PDF version of this book, as in Page:Niger Delta Ecosystems- the ERA Handbook, 1998.pdf/3 (note the "pdf" in the title). Since the DjVu version does not have this transcribed text (i.e. Page:Niger Delta Ecosystems- the ERA Handbook, 1998.djvu/3 does not yet exist), the text will need to be moved from the PDF's pages to the DjVu's pages. Mahir256 (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 22:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Could somebody post a link to the page I should start from? Don't want to be an idiot and muddle anything up, but planning to spend much of Sunday on this (learning as I go).Susi Arnott (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Index:Niger Delta Ecosystems- the ERA Handbook, 1998.djvu is the index page. Susi Arnott is the generated file coming from a document that has been directly transformed, or has it been scanned to generate this version? If the former, then obviously not words to check, and it is formatting, and, if any, images to reproduce. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The original file was a pdf with several illustrations - took advice to convert online into a djvu fileSusi Arnott (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a small thing but the table of contents should probably use {{Dotted TOC page listing}} to render the dots. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Using dropinitial with center block[edit]

I am a little frustrated to find that when using dropinitial decorated capitals in poetry, center block does not work properly. Lines are split prematurely and, for some reason, the right hand side of the page is never reached. I am therefore forced to leave the text left-justified and inset each and every line using 'gap', and this can go on for pages! The first example of this can be found on page: Landon in Fisher's Drawing Room Scrap Book 1833.pdf/4 and there are several other similar entries in that same volume. Esme Shepherd (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I've encountered this problem also. (A better example of the behaviour is the second line of Page:Songs of a Savoyard.djvu/61.) This is actually normal CSS behaviour: the width of the centered block of text is based on the text itself, and because the dropinitial is floated it is not included in the width calculation.
I don't know of any "nice" way to circumvent this. I usually just let the lines wrap at the end. One could manually set the width of the centered block (({{center block/s|style=width:500px;}}), which is far nicer than manually insetting each line as you have done—but it is essentially a hack and isn't guaranteed to work everywhere, so I don't think it's any better than letting the lines wrap. I'd be interested to see what other editors have to say about it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Esme Shepherd: Removed the {{Gap}} business. It looked like a bit of nuisance. Beleg Tâl's hack is appropriate in this case; poetry looks good if centered as a block. Please check (revert if you don't like). Hrishikes (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help. Using (Left margin) is a great help. With such a large drop capital - 12 lines in length, word wrap is too messy and doesn't match the ornament, so I've edited to make the block width wider and this looks fine. I'm happy now I have the poetry centered and I'll modify the other poems along the same lines. Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Just a note that {{center block}} and {{block center}} are different. If one doesn't work, try the other. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I've figured out a better way to handle this: see User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox#FQM+Dropinitial. Perfectly centered, proper CSS, the only downside is if the number of lines shifted by the dropinitial varies. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Table help request[edit]

Easy for some, not for me. Any assistance appreciated with table on this page. Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done , much easier without tables imho —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I am no fan of tables, and less so of ToC's. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: (or anyone) Would you mind checking to see why "Poems of Nature" on this ToC page does not appear in the Main? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done -- matter of nop. Hrishikes (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Appreciated :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

math formula help please[edit]

How can I force a space in a math formula between two elements. The space is required between the "5" and the "(".


In the following example I separated them by using two sets of <math></math> tags and "&nbsp&nbsp" between, which is amateurish. — Ineuw talk 23:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


From Help:Fractions and functions (spacing) Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

<math>1.75\ (10)^{-13}</math>


Much thanks Londonjackbooks. — Ineuw talk 16:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Undisplayed images[edit]

Sometime on 29th August, some of the images in Category: Fisher's drawing room scrap book Plates ceased to be displayed in the Media section, only a ? remains apart from 1832-44-Delhi.png, which has the file name included on the display. All these images do appear when clicked to view. At first they were not displayed where used on pages but this has corrected itself. The error appears to be entirely random and the images that are affected are:

File:1832-10-Palace of the Seven Stories, Beejapore.png
File:1832-18-Hurdwar, A Place of Hindoo Pilgrimage.png
File:1832-25-Grass Rope Bridge at Teree, Gurwall.png
File:1832-7-Pile of Fouldrey Castle.png
File:1833-26-Assar Mahal, Beejapore.png
File:1833-34-The Rt. Honble. John George Lambton Baron Durham.png
File:1833-36-Tomb of Humaioon, Delhi.png
File:1833-44-Sir Walter Scott Bart.png
File:1833-51-Interior of the Church of the Carmellite Friary.png
File:1833-55-Cuthbert Collingwood. Baron Collingwood.png
File:1833-7-Interior of the Collegiate Church, Manchester.png
File:1833-8-Tintagel Castle, Cornwall.png

Thirteen in all. Yesterday there were fifteen, so maybe they are correcting themselves also? Any thought s on that? Esme Shepherd (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Esme Shepherd: All the images are visible to me on opening c:Category:Fisher's drawing room scrap book Plates. Sometimes all images may not load when your internet speed is very slow. Hrishikes (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. Glad all is well at your end. Don't think it's the internet speed, which seems okay, and anyway only specific images have been targeted. I will continue to monitor the situation and see if it goes away. Successfully uploaded four more images today - there will be over 250 if I complete the whole project. Esme Shepherd (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Only the first five today - still improving! Esme Shepherd (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Help with a download[edit]

I want to add here a particular book available at and but I don't have download access. Can anybody help? Hrishikes (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Fragments of Ancient Poetry[edit]

Hello. Before adding this work to New Texts, I would like to ask if its transclusion looks acceptable and what, if anything, can be done to improve it (aesthetically). E.g., there should probably be a larger space between the Title page and the Preface, right? (I tried {{nop}}, but it doesn't seem to do the trick.) Thanks in advance for any feedback. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

If you leave two blank line spaces before the nop, it will do the trick. Also, you may wish to incorporate "Lucan." into the block center template. Perhaps like:

Vos quoque qui fortes animas, belloque peremptas
Laudibus in longum vates dimittitis ævum,
Plurima securi fudistis carmina Bardi.

{{Block center|{{smaller block|''Vos quoque qui fortes animas, belloque peremptas''{{gap}}<br />
''Laudibus in longum vates dimittitis ævum,''<br />
''Plurima securi fudistis carmina'' Bardi.}}
{{right|{{smaller|{{sc|[[Author:Marcus Annaeus Lucanus|Lucan]].}}}}}}}}

Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, to create space between letters, you can use the {{sp}} template. Better than breaking up searchable text. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks Londonjackbooks! ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity (upon looking at the Lucan quotation again): is there a way (some template?) for us to provide (public domain) translations of occasional non-English quotations? While that goes beyond the duty of the faithful transcriber, I sometimes worry that most readers simply won't be able to understand such quotations without translation. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it need be a point of worry. The curious and inquiring will dig deeper for answers. I have trouble understanding some English language poetry :) My opinion is that unless one links to another Wikisource-hosted work, we should let it be and leave it to the reader to seek things out. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
An option would be to provide a translation on the Mainspace Talk page. But definitely provide a source for the translation. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@DanielTom: Alternatively, you can use {{User annotation}} to put a translation in the footnote. Hrishikes (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thank you both. ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@DanielTom: Keep in mind that if you add User annotations to a work, you should consider the proposed guidelines at Wikisource:Annotations giving special note to the requirements section. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I see. (I don't plan on using it.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Working out versions[edit]

Had I performed operations correctly, this would have been easier; however, I am seeking advice on how to best work out the following:

I created The world is too much with us; late and soon from an indexed source.

Already created was a Bartleby/Gutenberg unindexed version: The World Is Too Much With Us with several pages/redirects linking to it.

Do I create a versions page to include the Gutenberg &c. version? If so, do I move the Gutenberg version to "The World Is Too Much With Us (Gutenberg)"? using "The World Is Too Much With Us" as the versions page title? or do I (ugh) overwrite the Gutenberg version as a redirect? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I would say move the Gutenberg version, leaving a redirect, then turn that redirect into the version page. That way, all the incoming links go to the versions page about the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


Hi. How can I write a wikilink to Wikisource page with match parameter? Thank you. IKhitron (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@IKhitron: Could you explain a bit more about what you're trying to do? What is the 'match parameter'? —Sam Wilson 01:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I want to connect to wikisource double language page using double brackets. Match is wikisource that matchs two languages. For example,,_with_introductions_and_notes,_Volume_1/Disputation_on_Indulgences can be written as Works of Martin Luther, with introductions and notes, Volume 1/Disputation on Indulgences, but I don't know how to write,_with_introductions_and_notes,_Volume_1/Disputation_on_Indulgences?match=fr. IKhitron (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@IKhitron: I think you just have to construct the link manually (as an 'external' link, using single square brackets). For the URL you could use a magic word, and if you don't want it to display the little icon of externality, you can wrap it in 'plainlinks'. For example: <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Works_of_Martin_Luther,_with_introductions_and_notes,_Volume_1/Disputation_on_Indulgences|match=fr}} Link text]</span> gives: Link text. Sam Wilson 01:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
For more information see mul:Wikisource:DoubleWiki Extension and mw:Extension:DoubleWiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, user:samwilson and user:billinghurst. I know this, of course, but it's not what I need. It should be real internal link, if it's possible at all. IKhitron (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@IKhitron: What's your use case? The main difference with an internal link is that there would be an actual record of the link existing and so features such as backlinks would work. With a link like ?match=fr this isn't possible, and so there isn't any way to make this an internal link. Sam Wilson 11:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
SQL database on external links. IKhitron (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Page status radio buttons suddenly disappeared in edit view[edit]

Completed proofreading a page and wanted to set its status to /*Proofread*/ but the Page status radio buttons disappeared (as in do not exist) in the edit view. — Ineuw talk 19:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

They've disappeared for me as well. No option to set the proofreading level. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Same. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Me too. BethNaught (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
And me, at least I'm not alone. Esme Shepherd (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I just submitted this problem to Phabricator since it appears to be global (also in the French Wikisource). Seudo (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Curious; in the meantime, is there a way to add text (instructions) to the url line when in edit mode that would instruct it to be marked as proofread once "Publish changes" is pressed? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The only thing that one can do is identify such pages in the summary like "Proofread" and then come back later and change them when the controls are working. — Ineuw talk 23:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I was able to upgrade a page to /*Proofread*/ by opening the page in AWB. In theory, if an editor could generate a list of pages needing such an upgrade, anyone with AWB access could run through the list and save the upgrades. BD2412 T 02:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Problem with that is that AWB saving requires you to save with your own name, so the proofreader recorded is not the proofreader. That then means that someone can validate their own work. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
It also means that anyone marking other editors' pages as Proofread would then be unable to Validate them later. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I had some thoughts to resolve those issues, but they are moot now. BD2412 T 00:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
It could be related to this commit from the other day. I'm having more of a look now. Sam Wilson 05:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
A fix is in the works, thanks to legoktm. Sam Wilson 06:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Same problem on nl-wikisource! --Dick Bos (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, bug fixed. Yann (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Just confirmed, validation is possible again! Mudbringer (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Moot question now, but had we placed /* Proofread */ in the edit summary before publishing changes, would that have advanced the page to proofread? I do not know how these things work, but am curious nevertheless. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Yann (and others?) Thanks a lot for quickly solving this problem! --Dick Bos (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

When a book's table of contents is not sufficient[edit]

Page:Handbook_of_the_Swatow_vernacular.djvu/15 omits Lesson V and does not note the Preface that comes before it. What do I do when transcluding it? Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The preface can be included on the work's primary page, if you like. As for missing items in the Contents, they can be set inside <includeonly> so that the information shows up when transcluded, but not when proofreading the page. It's not an ideal solution, but for something like a table of contents, the only alternative would be to create a separate ToC and not transclude the original, which is even less satisfactory. I've set up Lesson V in the ToC, though the title for the lesson might need to be changed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
That makes sense, thank you! Suzukaze-c (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Download from HathiTrust[edit]

Can anybody help in getting the book from ? It is U.S. access only. Hrishikes (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm downloading it. Do you want it uploaded to here? Is it suitable for Commons? (Hathitrust doesn't have death years for most of the authors.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Thanks. Already added by @Mahir256:. Hrishikes (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on adding this The Basic English Bible without a scan, but it exists here hathitrust and her google books maybe it can be added in the same way? I don't have access to it as above. It is not copyright protected because it was published without a copyright notice. It would be nice to have a scan. Jpez (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If Hathitrust and Google Books consider it copyrighted, there's no easy way to download it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sections (that end on a different page)[edit]

I have been doing proofreading and also some validation on Matthew Henry's An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) - Volume 1. I notice in Page:An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) vol 1.djvu/54 that a section end has been put at the bottom of the page. Should this be moved to the end of the chapter, which is on a different page? The same will apply to the other 15 or so chapters that have been worked on, though I suspect I haven't put any section ends in at all on some of them. --PeterR2 (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Section tags are used to mark off portions of a page when you don't want to transclude the whole page at once. So if you have Chapter 4 ending on a page, and Chapter 5 beginning on the same page, and want to transclude the two chapters on different pages later, there'll be a section for each part of that page, which you could call "ch4" and "ch5", or just "s1" and "s2". The details are explained in Help:Transclusion. The page you link to is all Chapter 1, so unless there's some strange reason I'm not aware of, the section tags are not needed on the page. Mudbringer (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828)#Pentateuch has links to the different chapters, which are presumably generated by those tags? But whether the section *end* tags perform any function, I don't know; i.e. whether anything will be broken if they are not put in at all or put somewhere other than the actual end of the section? Would I be better to move that Section end tag to the end of the section, even though it's on a subsequent page? Or does it have to be on the same page as the section started on? Sorry I haven't really understood what the concept of transclusion is all about.PeterR2 (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
First of all, the short answer is, you don't have to do anything in this case with the section tags: they aren't hurting anything. Also, putting in section tags isn't really part of the proofreading or validation process, so you usually can just ignore them, unless you're the main person organizing the presentation of a particular book.
The links to the chapters point to anchors in the text. For example the link to chapter 14 is produced by this wikicode:

[[An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828)/Genesis#ch14|14]]

The last 14 is what you see on the finished page, everything before the | is the actual link, and the "ch14" following the # points to the anchor. The anchor itself is not produced by the section tag, rather in this case there's a tag <span id="ch14">, and the use of the id attribute in an html tag produces an anchor. The more common way to do it in wikisource, is to use an anchor template: {{anchor|c14}}. You can read about that here: {{anchor}}.
Here is a typical example of transclusion: Grimm's Household Tales, Volume 1/Little Snow-White. If you click edit on that page, you'll see almost none of the text of the story is visible, it's all transcluded from pages in the Page namespace (pages beginning with "Page:"). The tag that does the transclusion is this:

<pages index="Grimm's Household Tales, vol.1.djvu" from=289 to=297 fromsection=s2 tosection=s1 />

What this tag does is pull in the text from Page:Grimm's Household Tales, vol.1.djvu/289 to Page:Grimm's Household Tales, vol.1.djvu/297. That's what transclusion is. Now the first and last of those pages have sections that don't belong to Snow White, so they have to be left out of the transclusion. This is achieved by fromsection=s2, which means, only transclude starting from the <section begin=s2 /> tag on the first page, and tosection=s1, which means, only transclude up to the <section end=s1 /> tag on the last page. That's the most typical example, but there are variations.
One thing that's really confusing at first, is that a particular section is only a part of a single page; it never extends from one page to another. So you'll almost never need to move a section tag from one page to different one. The begin and end tags are always on the same page, although the last section on the page doesn't usually need an end tag.
I hope this was comprehensible, but please let me know if some of it still doesn't make sense. Mudbringer (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Since I had not understood what was going on I just copied all the markup from the beginning of one chapter to the next (changing the numbers of course). But I hadn't put in any section ends at all in the chapters I have worked on, which means there are sections with no ends. I've also been validating some of the earlier pages that I didn't proofread myself, and this was when I realised there was something fishy about these "sections".PeterR2 (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

copyright question[edit]

I'd like to add this work The Old Testament, an American Translation but I'm not sure if it's in the public domain. It seems it's copyright was renewed but whats weird is that it's been added to by a reliable contributor. Am I missing something? Jpez (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment that the work is not PD due to the renewal. I've found that IA hosting is not a good indicator that a work is public domain, having found several works over the past couple of years that are still under copyright. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah me too, I've seen many such works, some even published in the 2000's or late 1900's. Upon further investigation I've found each book in this bible was translated by different authors and it seems the child of one of the translators has made the renewal. I'm thinking of adding this work on the basis that it was added to IA by the w:Million Book Project According to the wikipedia article "Most of the books are in the public domain, but permission has been acquired to include over 60,000 copyrighted books (roughly 53,000 in English and 7,000 in Indian languages)." Jpez (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
"Free-to-read" does not grant permission to copy or host the work elsewhere. The Project may have been granted permission to host, but that doesn't mean that hosting is transferable to other organizations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok I see, best leave it alone then. Jpez (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Disappearing icons between yesterday and today[edit]

I do most of my Wiki editing at this site, so I'll ask here.

Yesterday everything was fine. When I signed in today, the first thing I noticed was that the head-and-shoulders icon before my userid was missing; so was the bell for Your Alerts and the tray for Your Notices. Also missing is icon for Add Page to Watchlist. When I access Recent Changes, the icon in front of Atom is missing. More disconcerting is when I go into Index ns and Page ns. In Page ns the icons for Previous Page, Next Page, and Index are missing. The spaces where the icons should be displayed are there and I can move about but this is not right. Also in the default paragraph at the bottom starting "By saving changes ..." there are spaces after the three links, making it seem that there is something missing there as well.

Now, I have checked all Wiki sites listed on the left-hand side and all are the same, except Wikipedia This site has retained all icons, and there are no spaces after the 3 links in the "By saving changes" paragraph.. [Now same as rest of sites. Grrrr.]

This occurs when I'm logged in or out. I even logged out and shut down my computer (I turn it off every night) and started over again. No change. FYI, I use Win10 with IE11. Hey, it's what I'm used to.

Any ideas? Suggestions? What changed between yesterday and today? Humbug26 (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Humbug26: I haven't noticed any changes at my end. Has the problem persisted? If so, it could be a change to your skin of choice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I cannot talk to your specific differences. I can talk to Tuesdays which is the day that we (enWS) get the local update of the new version of Mediawiki. The announcement of the release is at WS:S each week. The Wikipedias get the update later in the same week. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: @Billinghurst: Thanks to you both for your answers. The head-and-shoulders, bell and tray icons came back a couple of days ago. I just checked the page namespace. The arrows for next, previous and index page just showed up today; as well as the arrows in the "By saving changes ..." paragraph. Wikipedia is still missing everything. Maybe someone reported elsewhere and adjustments have been quietly made in the background or it's just a quirk for Win10 IE11. For this site, my concern has been resolved. Humbug26 (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Question at {{TOCstyle}} about transclusion[edit]

[12] Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

As discussed there the interaction between <pages> and HTML structures created by {{TOCstyle}} confuse the mediawiki parser (yes I know this should not happen.) In particular the pages tag always adds a new enclosing DIV tag. But this is now inside of a TABLE structure. Weirdly mediawiki tries to compensate by introducing a new and entirely irrational UL tag (as far as I can figure solely to protect the SPANs introduced by PageNumber.js and support services…)
If you are feeling confused by the above it is only because it really is that messy (and I am simplifying at that!)
Unfortunately the truth is that there probably is no solution which is likely to remain stable over the next mediawiki software update (I expect the current problems are an artefact of TIDY being phased out and cannot offer any useful prediction as to future behaviour.
All I can recommend is to try to restructure your use of <section> tags to always enclose "full" {{TOCstyle}} structures (i.e. not involving header or footer exclusions of |header=yes or |footer=yes clauses) wherever possible. 22:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I think I understand at a certain level. Thanks much for the input. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Yah. {{TOCstyle}} was only ever a compromise solution assuming the mediawiki parser would be stable. Sadly it (slightly) pre-dated VisualEditor, which fundamentally undermined those very assumptions (as did so-called mobile support.) This may indicate it has passed its use-by date already. 00:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Bummer. It made TOC construction a bit more bearable for me. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Well - being cruel and unsympathetic - you are an administrator and as such presumably have the contacts available who would update and maintain the beast in an appropriate and "official" manner? Or is your influence somewhat less than you wish to publicly admit? 01:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
You got me! The Reluctant Administrator. I'll think on it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
All one could ask for. 02:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Nope. Seems I am already in contact with someone familiar with the beast, but one who is presumably unwilling to update and maintain it in an official manner. I have already asked for help above and at the appropriate talk page. Anyone with an interest is free to read the threads and tinker. No influence required; as if I would try to exert any :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding a translation that I have written[edit]

Hi everyone,

I'm brand new to Wikisource and would like to make a contribution.

I'm a professional translator and I have a number of my own English translations of Charles Baudelaire poems (specifically those in "Fleurs du Mal") which are not published anywhere else. I would like to add these to Wikisource, which I believe is permitted as per the site's T&Cs.

However, I'm unsure how to create a new page for each poem; I think this would be the process as the main "Fleurs du Mal" page links to subpages.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. I did familiarise myself with the upload process for images etc, but this didn't seem relevant.

Apologies for asking such a basic question!

Here's the page I've since created: unsigned comment by RoryMelough (talk) .

Hello. I am not well versed on the matter, but in the absence of other direction thus far, have you yet read over Wikisource:Translations guidance? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@RoryMelough: Very happy to have you here. We welcome original translations and this is a very valuable contribution. Please let me know if the page that Londonjackbooks linked above leaves you with questions. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes at the end, like so: ~~~~ —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@RoryMelough: I've modified "The Fountain of Blood" according to our user-translation practices. You can use it as an example of how to proceed.
A couple of tips: 1. Ignore The Flowers of Evil (1857) and The Flowers of Evil (1861). They have nothing to do with your user translation. 2. Use Translation:The Flowers of Evil as a table of contents. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Newbie needing clarification on indentation practices[edit]

Heya everyone. I've asked a few questions before and here's another one. The style guide conventions on indenting state that one generally shouldn't indent new paragraphs. This makes total sense to me since most indented new paragraphs in old texts were simply to save space. My question is, what is the generally accepted way of handling indents that are obviously deliberately inserted in the text?

Take this page where the author's "signature" and the publishing/writing date are both in/outdented, or this page where various parts are in/outdented for what I assume were the style conventions of the day. As you can see from the links, I've handled this in a rather clumsy way by using {{spaces}}, but it looks wonky and doesn't convey the way the original letter looks. Should I drop the indentation, and if so, how should these various pieces of text be treated? Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 20:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The best template for deliberate spacing is {{gap}}, used the same way you have used {{spaces}}. With regard to your specific examples:
  • (1) the indents are okay but unnecessary as they are not any different than other paragraphs, you will note that the publishing/writing date is indented identically to the paragraphs above it on previous pages, and the signature is just the same but on the other margin.
  • (2) Same as (1) for the dates and signatures. Note that the paragraphs beginning "The intention of my letter" and "N. B. It may be proper" are normal paragraphs and their indentation should not be reproduced. The greeting "Sir" is definitely deliberately placed and you can use {{gap}} to place it with an increased margin.
Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec) A suggestion:


{{gap|1em}}''Philadelphia'', ''July'', 1797.

More fun -> [13] (which, giving it another look, I may tweak some) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you both, I'll try out {{gap}} and tweak the pages mentioned by Beleg Tâl. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 21:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
@InsaneHacker:As a general comment, when you do a copy and paste of gap template, then the "gap" will disappear. When you do a copy and paste of spaces, or if you indent where something like &emsp; was used, then they will be captured in the paste. I often use that difference as an indicator to how, and when, I use respective templates/approaches.

With any work that you are reproducing here, if you end up making a stylistic choice, we ask that you record that information on the "Index talk:" page of the work, so whomever comes after you is able to see and continue that formatting. Or otherwise engage in conversation about the choice. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Works of James Frederick Ferrier[edit]

{{process header
 | title =
 | section =
 | previous =
 | next =
 | shortcut =
 | notes =

I don't know what this means: "This page should include a {{process header}} template. Please review its documentation and Help:Style guide."

A newbie, I joined primarily for one purpose I have a number of works already in text (OCR'd and proofed). I'm not trying to make extra work for anybody. I've done a lot of work that shouldn't all be duplicated. Can text be uploaded rather than starting with page images? Or must page images be loaded and then can text be pasted page by page? Klarm768 (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Klarm768: We have a preference for scan-supported transcriptions as that allows us to have two levels of verification of text, and allows for future checking. That said, we do not insist on scans. [By the way, if you have scans and proofed OCR'd text, we do have the means to put them back together]

Sounds as though we can start with an author page ... Author:James Frederick Ferrier ... rather than a portal page, and list works from there. Then we can assist you in creating pages for the works. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thanks. The formats/conventions here are very disquieting, foreign, & anti-intuitive to me. If you can guide me to start with Author:James Frederick Ferrier author page ... creating one page for his first work, importing the page-images for that work, guiding me how to paste existing text and assign text-formats ... I would be most appreciative.Klarm768 (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Klarm768: Generally author pages are simpler listings — * ''title'' (year of edition) though we can insert a little extra information at times. We record edition data with our transcriptions (usually title page), and that data is also migrated to Wikidata. (Noting that edition metadata is of more importance to us than book metadata,) I would suggest that you add your list of works to that page and we can come along and tidy. From there we can drill into the works. For our works, we usually have edition data and table of contents at root level, and chapters become subpages, though it is very dependent on the work presented by the author and the publisher. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: You lost me. How do I find/create this author page? IF I find it what will I do first? Second? Etc? My list of works is 31 items, but I'm afraid I won't survive getting the first one started. I uploaded a PDF to wikimedia, completed the process, and site gave me file information to paste somewhere but I can't find where to put it. I hope this gets less opaque soon. Klarm768 (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Klarm768 This page has been deleted. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 18:31, 29 October 2017 Beleg Tâl (talk | contribs) moved page User:Klarm768 to User talk:Klarm768 without leaving a redirect (sorry, posted the comment on the wrong page) Klarm768 (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Breathe! smiley I am going to hazard a guess that you are new to wikis, and not just new to Wikisource. So that changes how we talk about things and what we assume, and what is different! Now I may get others to help, as I should be doing some work.
  1. author page --link--> Author:James Frederick Ferrier. Add your works to works section as a list. Use format above (asterisk become bullets, double apostrophe becomes italics)
  2. deleted page. That is your user page where you can put stuff for reference or links. It pairs to your user talk page where we have conversations with you. A colleague put their welcome message on the wrong page and corrected themself, and you are just seeing that result. Not to fuss, we can get there later.
billinghurst sDrewth 23:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Klarm768: I posted a bunch of helpful links on your User Talk page (User talk:Klarm768). When I first posted it, I accidentally put it at your User page instead (User:Klarm768). That is why, when you go to User:Klarm768, it says that I moved the content from User:Klarm768 to User talk:Klarm768. I strongly recommend that you read through the links I posted. They contain the answers to many of your questions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

How to mark an error in the original[edit]

Page:Fancy dresses described, or, What to wear at fancy balls (1887).djvu/63 contains an obvious error near the end of the page. It says that the Queen of Spades should wear a club. (A handwritten correction is present on the scan.) This isn't exactly a "spelling error", but is {{SIC}} still the correct way to mark this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Still an obvious error that could be reasonably marked using {{SIC}}. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what I've done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

creating an ebook[edit]

When trying to download Narrative_of_the_Life_of_Frederick_Douglass,_An_American_Slave as an epub, I only get the title page. When I download for instance A_Bid_for_Fortune I get the whole book. Can anyone explain that, please..... --Dick Bos (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It's likely a problem with how the Contents are displayed from the main page. The Narrative... has a templated Contents instead of a transcluded table, which I suspect is the cause of the problem.
I've tried switching to an Auxiliary TOC. Does that correct the problem? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes wrapping Tables of Contents in <div class="ws-summary">...</div> helps too. Sam Wilson 00:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The TOC was wrapped in that tag before I made the change. It didn't seem to be helping. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
It's alright now! Thanks a lot. --Dick Bos (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


Is this work [[14]] public domain in Europe? I need to know because published before 1923 means it is public domain in US, but if it is not in Europe, then I cannot upload it at Wikimedia. I know quite nothing of EU copyright laws, so I need help from experienced users. I herd you liek mudkips (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If the author(s), translator(s), and illustrator(s) of a work are named, and if they died more than 70 years ago, the work will be public domain in the UK and EU. Other situations require more research or other rules apply, and and you say, the US status must be judged separately. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
According to the IA page: Wyss d. 1818, Rhead 1926, Howells 1920; should be ok. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Replacing an individual source page[edit]

This page is ripped but a complete page can be found here [15] is there a way to replace the individual page? GhostOrchid35 (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Done.— Mpaa (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks GhostOrchid35 (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mpaa: could you do pages 163-4, 167-8 173-4 as well (also ripped)? Thank you.

My first index namespace[edit]

I want to create an index page for 'File:Image Fer38 02 INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF CONSCIOUSNESS—PART 1.pdf'

I've tried to get there through a couple different recommended "help" sources, but I always quit without creating the page.
  • The category always comes up BOOK and I have not figured out how to change that. It will permit me to select a subcategory of book, but nothing else.
  • This is a small segment of a large book, ONE article from ONE volume of ONE periodical:

I hoped to find fields to populate like those for Bibliographic sources articlename, periodicalname, volume, series, pages, year, month, publisher, editor, city, etc. Klarm768 (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by not being able to change the category. The type field of the index is a drop-down menu (with the options book, thesis, journal, collection, and dictionary) which appears to be working fine. Other similar single-article indexes seem to be variously categorised as book, thesis or journal; thesis seems to me to be the best choice here...
The article name, periodical name, volume and such can be mentioned in the title field. I believe all the other details have separate fields.
These indexes might help: Index:Electromagnetic effects of a moving charge.djvu, Index:MichelsonSodium1887.djvu, Index:Poincare Time.djvu
C. F. 12:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Klarm, we already have some of Blackwood's Magazine available at Commons as full scanned volumes, rather than snippets containing single articles. Full volumes make it easier to proofread the rest of the volume and keep all the parts together. I have uploaded v43 for you at Index:Blackwood's Magazine volume 043.djvu. The rest of the volumes are mostly available at the Internet Archive and are linked to at Blackwood's Magazine. Your article starts at this page of the scan. Note, on the index page, there is some special handling of the page numbers, as there are errors in the physical numbering of the original.
I used a University of Toronto scan from the IA, as I find the Google black-and-white ones are quite hard to read. While the UofT ones are also not wonderful (sadly common in very long, dense scans), the OCR layer does seem pretty reasonable. I hope that helps. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 :@Clockery: I presumed thesis, journal, collection, and dictionary were types of books. At any rate I would not categorize this document under any of those.
I am hoping that the wikisource infrastructure accommodates scholarly citation conventions... Has any wikisource document ever been cited in a scholarly journal?
 :@Inductiveload: I have OCR'd, have proofed, and possess 31 works of James Frederick Ferrier, most extracted from various volumes of Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine.
I fantasize populating Ferrier's author namespace on Wikisource... which has no works identified at present. Does my fantasy work counter to Wikisource objectives?
Not at all, in fact, working on a focussed subset of works by topic or author is very common. You are welcome to transcribe only such articles of collective works as you wish. It's just easier to do it within the framework of the entire volume, so others can slot in other articles over time. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Thanks. I appreciate your providing the link to that page. Surprisingly (since the image has so much dinginess and bleedthrough), the wikisource OCR is excellent... almost as good as when I used to tweak my own scans (I preferred B&W TIFFs and Kodak Imaging. Alas! for the days of Windows XP!). If you would oversee me until I can reliably emulate the steps you used in creating that page, I shall endeavor to produce the pages and proof the Ferrier articles in Volume 043 (of which there are three).
Yes, I try to read the instructions but it seems like I hang on wikiwords that are not yet in my usable vocabulary. Klarm768 (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Klarm768: Editing Wikisource can be a bit of a steep learning curve, between all the namespaces and conventions. I am happy to help you upload other volumes if you wish. If you'd like to attempt it yourself, the basic process is something like this:
  • Download the DJVU file from the Internet Archive for the volume you want (IA link at Blackwood's Magazine).
  • Upload the DJVU file to Commons with the name formatted like "Blackwood's Magazine volume 043.djvu" (consistency in naming makes templates work)
    • You can copy the Commons description text from v43, adding any other details you know
  • Create the Index page for the volume - copy v43 if unsure, but really, most of the fields are not critical.
    • The page list is the hardest bit here, as this publication seems to often have defects in the physical numbering, and maybe missing pages in some volumes. This bit can be very annoying, I find it easiest to have the DJVU open locally in a document reader (Evince/Xreader on Linux can read Djvu, no idea about Windows), for quick access to pages. It's not necessary to have the page list done for proofread, but without it, page numbers in the main namespace will be incorrect, so it's a good idea if you can.
  • You can now proofread the work.
    • I see you have already worked out the Section marker syntax, which is the most important bit for transcluding subsets of pages to the main namespace
  • When transcluding, I recommend using a main namespace title something like Blackwood's Magazine/Volume 43/Issue 268/An Introduction to the Philosophy of Consciousness:
    • It's "tidier" and allows sibling articles in the same issue/volume to exist in a rational framework
    • It's compatible with templates like {{article link}}
FYI, the OCR layer is generated by the Internet Archive, which uses ABBYY software and (I assume) a lot of experience, as it is generally excellent. The original scan images used for the OCR (look for JP2 at the IA) are much clearer than the heavily compressed DJVU, at least for UofT scans (Google doesn't provide the original images), but they are rather large (~500MB/vol). You can even get the IA to OCR your own scans if you upload them there. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Thanks for your help. I'm starting to feel productive as I encounter purposes for new terms, grammar, and syntax... looking forward to finding out what transcluding is... dreading to learn how many proofing laws I've violated. I have proofed pages 187-201 and am starting 437-452... puzzled about a single footnote that consumes most real estate of three pages.Klarm768 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@Klarm768:. Glad it's coming together - your proofreading looks good so far! Don't worry about breaking rules - the worst case is that you make a mess of your own work and someone will help you fix it, there's nothing you can really accidentally break that will cause major problems. Exercise caution when editing templates that other works already use, this is the only way you can really "leak" errors outside your own domain.
I see you have worked out the "ref follow" technique. Transclusion (or "trans-namespace inclusion") is the way to get "Page" content into the main namespace. To pick an example from the New Text list, it's what gets you from Page:George Eliot (Blind 1883).djvu/11 (and later pages) to George Eliot (Blind 1883)/Chapter 1. See Help:Transclusion for extra details and corner cases. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 11:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: I hope that I correctly infer that, when an individual article from Blackwood's Maga has been transcluded, then as a free-standing document it can be linked to the J.F. Ferrier author namespace (perhaps not correct term, oh well). Thus it would serve my purposes and conceivably the eventual transclusion of an entire Blackwood's Magazine volume#_. Is that accurate? On a separate thread of purposes, do wikisource works have functionality of proximity text searches? How about across a defined collection of materials? I often want to find a passage out of which I remember a few words but don't remember which volume it was in. Currently I accomplish it with Acrobat Pro... but Adobe gives me headaches. PS: Today I have started proofing Vol.43 pg. 784-791. PPS: Do you know much about 19th century anonymous journalism and discovery of authorship? Klarm768 (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Klarm768: Yes, that's correct. I'd use the {{article link}} template on Author:James Frederick Ferrier (this in indeed in the author namespace) and name the transcluded main namespace (mainspace) article something like Blackwood's Magazine/Volume 43/Issue 268/An Introduction to the Philosophy of Consciousness. This allows other articles to be consistently named like Blackwood's Magazine/Volume 43/Issue 268/Other Article. Which leads nicely to:
As for searching, if you use a search query like "cat prefix:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica", it will search for instances of "cat" only in pages with titles starting "1911 Encyclopædia Britannica" (including subpages). This means you can search within volume and issue of works which are laid out as subpages.
For the anonymous authorship, I have no special powers there. I generally just use Google, and if there's no hint there or in the contents of the work in question, just call it "Anonymous" and move on. If anyone comes along later with more information, that can be added. From a copyright perspective, an anonymous work is generally public domain sooner than non-anonymous, as in the US it probably wasn't registered for copyright and outside the US, it's (usually) 70 years from publication, as opposed to 70 years from author's death (70 is common, depends on country). It's more complicated than that, but copyright always is! You can use {{PD-anon-1923}} to mark these anonymous articles. For pre-1923 works, it's always permissible on Wikisource anyway. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: I have "finished" proofing the three Ferrier pieces in Blackwood's Magazine/Volume 43. I presume that those who validate will eventually get around to that. I could start work on his other works in Volumes 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 62, 70, 74. Perhaps I should say alleged work since none have a by-line. I hope you can advise me how to begin doing the part you did for me with your first intervention and uploading that page. I had hoped you had a particular interest/knowledge-base regarding Blackwoods. When I started down this road I didn't realize that, in that era, authorship ID was secret/private or pseudonymous. In the 1960's there was created The Wellesley Index... an index of authorship for that era (including Blackwood's). An expert in the arena provided me a list (perhaps not in compliance with his EULA) of Ferrier's works per The Index. I suspect that it is less than perfect but far better than Googleguessing. I have a particular interest in finding evidence regarding one article in a short-lived review journal of the 1840's... I covet the scholars' tool boxes, but I'm just a obsessive retired guy who enjoys being obsessive. Thanks for your patience.Klarm768 (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: I'm sorry to be such a pest. I have discovered extensive errors in my "proofing" and will be performing revisions. So I would not want them to be validated. I am studying your index page for volume 43 and think I can probably pull it off for volume 44 ...or come close... pages-field will be a challenge but I like that sort Klarm768 (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Inductiveload:I have completed my revisions and designated as proofread those pages in Blackwood's Magazine/Volume 43. I presume it was you who had been doing some clean-up on my pages... I spotted some revisions such as hyphenated-word-start-and-end. I tried to study and preserve them. I hoped I might be able to create an index page for Volume 44, but I suspect that something needs to be downloaded. 3 questions: Estimated time frame for those volume-43-pages transcluded? Do I talk to you about volume 44 download? Should I henceforth contact you through talk and let this field lie fallow?Klarm768 (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Klarm768: Glad to hear you have access to Wellesley - I could only grub up Volume 2 online (you need V1 for Blackwood, I think), and I'm not in a position to get hold of one in real life. There are people at WS who can help you with thorny questions needing research, but sadly I don't have much expertise or access.
It hasn't been me that corrected your proofreading, you can use the "View History" button to show who has edited a page. I think pages you edit are automatically "watched", you can also look at Special:Watchlist for edits made to these pages.
Generally, it's the proofreader who transcludes. I'm happy to do it for you as a demo, but there's certainly no need to wait for validation.
As for v44, I'll do it first for you. Technically, you don't need to download it from the IA, as there is an "ia-upload" tool. However, I'm working on a batch upload to Commons to save the effort in future. It's certainly handy to have the DjVu file locally on your machine when doing the page list, as they appear to be a bit messy, and it's much quicker to have a local copy to scrub through while working out what weirdness they got up to in the early 1800s!
We can continue on the talk page for Blackwood's Magazine if you prefer? My talk works for me too. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: I need to learn to use another talk locale but I wanted to let you know quickly, I managed to create an index page for Volume 44. I would appreciate your looking it over and offering any corrections.Klarm768 (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Klarm768: Looks good to me: the page numbers are correct for the last numbered page - always a good sign! I made a couple of tweaks on the index page (year, source and status). All pretty minor, looks like a good first rodeo!
To talk on another page, just go to that page's "Talk" page, and start a conversion - all pages in all namespaces have a "Talk" partner. It will show up on the watchlist of anyone watching the page, and you can also use {{ping}} to alert specific users manually. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 00:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


Already did three works. When do completed books get completely proofread and added to the main pages? I herd you liek mudkips (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

As soon as someone takes the time to proofread them. It's all volunteer work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
In other words, some works may not go to the main space for years? I do often find some works which are unfinished. I herd you liek mudkips (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
This is true. You can always proofread the work yourself. Creating an unproofread page is no obstacle to doing the first proofread pass. And if a work is fully (or nearly) proofread, there are plenty of editors who can help with transcription and assembly of the book. But the first proofread is the stage that takes the most time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia seems to be edited like every second but it seems Wikisource is not. How come? Also, it seems others wikis do not get the same amount of attention as Wikipedia. I herd you liek mudkips (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, the edits are creative, and often very minor. Here, we have fewer editors, and usually are trying to match an original source rather than synthesize a new article. Some editors prefer the creative side, while others prefer the monastic copying. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@I herd you liek mudkips: This is definitely true. Part of it is due to the nature of the editing (as Petey pointed out) and part of it is just due to ignorance that these sister projects exist. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Help with indexes[edit]

I'm trying to work on The Digital Public Domain's index (see Page:The digital public domain.pdf/6 and Page:The digital public domain.pdf/7). Is there any guide or example I can adapt from?

Also, unrelated question: this book contains some screenshots that are likely copyrighted, such as this. Should I just tag {{Image missing}} and move on?

Reviewing help would be appreciated, too. Thanks! NMaia (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

There are a few ways to do tables of contents; an example of my preferred method can be viewed at Page:Writings of Saint Patrick, Apostle of Ireland.djvu/11. For copyrighted images, use {{Image removed}}, and you will also need to make sure the PDF scan is replaced by one in which the images are removed also. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Would it be acceptable if I were to take screenshots myself in a non-infringing way and put that in instead? NMaia (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think that replacing a copyrighted image with an equivalent noncopyrighted image should be fine. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but if the work is under an open licence, the pictures should be too. Otherwise the authors had no right to publish then in a work under an open licence in the first place, unless they're claiming fair use (which I don't think this is, as it's a "generic" screenshot, not fair use made necessary by lack of alternatives, e.g. a quote from a copyright work). For that example, the image is some sort of CC licence too. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)