From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 January 2018, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


Text color[edit]

Is there a simple means to match the text color on this page Page:Fifth String (Sousa 1902).djvu/15 ?

The standard <font color="COLORNAME">TEXT</font> doesn't work because the text is centered, but I'm drawing a mental blank on how to cope with that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Use {{red}} Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Also noting that <font> is now problematic coding, so using the templates (css compliant), and entering a colour is the preferred methodology. Noting that we have {{color}} for all variations. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Using which templates, and entering a color how? I don't understand what you mean. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, I think I figured out what you were saying. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I have standardised each of the templates to now call {{color}} as the parent, which should make it easy to generate an alternate, if needed. I have also updated the documentation to be a cut and paste job. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Well that is just wonderful. Your new design now results in documentation for every colour stating (irrespective of actual hue): "Creates blue text." and then proceeds to give an example of the correct customised nature. Got the bluuueeesssss? 04:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
So I missed one, sue me. Fixed. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Why would I sue you? You responded to an error report and even took on change the change suggested thus performing a review function as well. Welcome to the world of collaborative community quality control. Remember to duck your head because the (cheap) contractor we used installed the doors to specification not requirement. 22:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


Please get the name right !

(it is NOT "Wittengenstein".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

You will need to provide more context. If you are referring to Author:Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein, you will notice that his name is spelled correctly. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm guessing this about File:Wittengenstein - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922.djvu. I don't think it should be moved; it's a lot of work to correct a name not visible to readers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
To the random IP address. The name in the file does not appear in the production of the work to the main namepsace, and as such it is a significant amount of work to rename the pages, and where the pages are transcluded, for little to no true benefit. Please free to add a note to the file or its talk page pointing to any spelling mistake. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I need to create an author.[edit]

The Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography (1876 edition) has over 250 unique author-ID's for the nearly 17000 signed biographies. Appearing only in Volume 1, "A. M." has 160 contributions. In the List of Contributors his description reads thus: Alexander Muir, Translator of Gregorovius' "Wanderings in Corsica." There is an WikiSource author named Alexander Muir, but I feel certain he cannot be the correct person. "Wanderings in Corsica" was published in Edinburgh is 1855. The earlier (1857-63) edition of The Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography also contains the "A. M." contributions. So far I have found no means to discover a birth-or-death-date for IDUB's Alexander Muir, and have I found only these two titles in which he was involved. What methods might yield a sufficient information to authenticate this author of 160 additional published items? Klarm768 (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Two quick ways that I look for authors: (1) If I know the name of a work, I will search the Internet Archive of Google Books to find biographical data. (2) If I know some likely personal details, or a publication date, I may search Wikidata or Wikipedia in case someone has started an entry there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
If it is impossible to identify further information about this author, a page could be created at Author:Alexander Muir (fl. 1855-1876). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: I am not familiar with the "fl." designation. What is it origin/meaning? Many contributors have no explicit authorship except contributing to IDUB. I have no access to Wellesley Index or the like. Would you know whether such sources could be helpful? Klarm768 (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
wikt:floruit. fl. 1922-1938 means that they're known to be active around 1922-1938. It's a way of giving some date information, even if we can't give birth and death dates.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

What I think may be a concern in {{Autolink}}[edit]

Comparing the output of : {{autolink|Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/May 1872/Quetelet on the Science of Man|author=Edward Burnett Tylor}}


{{PSM link|volumename={{#titleparts:Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/May 1872/Quetelet on the Science of Man|1|2}} |date = {{#titleparts: Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/May 1872/Quetelet on the Science of Man|1|3}} |title = {{#titleparts: Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/May 1872/Quetelet on the Science of Man| | -1 }} | author = Edward Burnett Tylor}}

I encountered a problem.. namely that {{Autolink}} is apprently adding the sequence ''. to the end of the output. This logic was presumably implemented to accomodate generic titles that needed different italicisation. However, {{PSM_link}} which is called in this instance adds it's own italics, causing the generated output to be unbalanced. Not entirely sure how to fix this, and would appreciate someone that's edited complex inter-nested templates, re-examining {{autolink}} in more detail. If this can be resolved easily, then a few Linter errors may also vanish as that's how this glitch was uncovered :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Simple solution, don't use {{autolink}} what a horrendous overly burdensome and intensive why to display a link. And I cannot support the unbridled use of #titleparts. What has gone wrong with "keep it simple stupid."
Fixed the problem. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ambox and related[edit]

A File: namespace page was showing up as having a stripped SPAN..

File:Kosovo Ombudsperson of Kosovo Seventh Annual Report 2006-2007.pdf

based on what's been disscussed elsewhere I decided to check the underlying template..

{{From Commons}} passes a list (as markup into {{Ambox}}....

However... Ambox now invokes LUA code to handle this Module: Message box, the relevant code for handling the text parameter, uses a span., which is "interrupted phrasing" if you try to put a block level element like a list into it. Is there some additional parameter that has been overlooked here? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


I'm going to ask what may seem like a stupid question...

Why is this apparently wrapping many tables inside LI's instead of generating a table row directly?

Also if a "No.D" style was added it solves the TOC problem here - (No. D being - Number right aligned as the first cell, description as the second.). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sidenotes overlaping[edit]

In Railways Act 1921 after the last round of editing, it currently uses a float-right, and a ref to do marginal citations and inline side-titles. The problem is that the float right's overlap, when the relevant mariginal citations are close together. What ideally should be happening is that the later float-right is pushed below the first one, but I am not sure that's possible in CSS/HTML. There isn't really a force to bottom option is there?

By comparison this is what generated as "plain view" output (and surprisingly their version has stripped the marginal citations out for some reason.)

The current layout (and cl-act-paragraph approach) is an attempted compromise between the print scan and 'plain view' versions within the limitations of mediawiki. If it can be improved by a more experienced coder please let me know.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I just started using sidenotes recently with Bible (King James)/Genesis for the first page. I used {{marginNote}} and the sidenotes do push down below each other in order as you wish. I'm not sure if that's what you want or if it's the best way to do sidenotes for that matter but I'm happy with it. Jpez (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Yea, {{MarginNote}} has a default spacing of 1px, I believe between notes, but you can set it to whatever you want if you use a certain argument. The rewrite of {{cl-act-title}}(User:JustinCB/cl-act-h) that I did as part of the rewrite of {{cl-act-paragraph}} you ask'd me to do uses {{MarginNote}} because it's designed for marginal notes, and it works correctly. JustinCB (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Formatting with brackets[edit]

How can I format the following so that the first line of text is inline with the lines of poetry within brackets? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Unlike Potosi holds no silver mine.—[MS. L. (a).]

Keeps back his ingots like
Is rather costive—like
Is no Potosi, but
an Irish Mine.—[MS. L. (b).]
I can't think of a great way, but I have two ideas:
1) Keep using your table, but pull in the first line:
{{block center/s}}
<p style="margin:0;"></p>
|  ||{{ts|padding:0;}} colspan=3 | ''Unlike Potosi holds no silver mine''.—[''MS. L''. (''a'').]
|{{ts|padding:0 0.25em 0 0.25em}}|{{brace2|3|l}}
|{{ts|padding:0}}|''Keeps back his ingots like''<br />''Is rather costive—like''<br />''Is no Potosi, but''
|{{ts|padding:0 0.25em 0 0.25em}}|{{brace2|3|r}}
|{{ts|padding:0}}|''an Irish Mine''.—[''MS. L''. (''b'').]
{{block center/e}}

Unlike Potosi holds no silver mine.—[MS. L. (a).]
Keeps back his ingots like
Is rather costive—like
Is no Potosi, but
an Irish Mine.—[MS. L. (b).]
2) Use float templates like {{fqm}} and {{float right}} with {{brace2}}:
{{block center/s}}
Unlike Potosi holds no silver mine.—[MS. L. (a).]
{{fqm|{{brace2|3|l}}}}Keeps back his ingots like{{float right|{{brace2|3|r}} ''an Irish Mine''}}
Is rather costive—like
Is no Potosi, but
{{block center/e}}

Unlike Potosi holds no silver mine.—[MS. L. (a).]
Keeps back his ingots like an Irish Mine
Is rather costive—like
Is no Potosi, but

The second's syntax is easier, but there's a tiny vertical shift in the braces. There might be a better way still.
Also, FYI, in CSS, when you give 4 values for "Top, Right, Bottom, Left", you can also do "Top&Bottom, Left&Right" if top = bottom and left = right. You can also do "Top, Left&Right, Bottom" where top != bottom, but left still equals right. So "0 0.25em 0 0.25em" is equivalent to "0 0.25em". Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I think I like your first example. It is in the same formatting "spirit" as other incidences appearing in the work/volumes. Have made note of your CSS info in a sandbox. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

.djvu file won't position correctly[edit]

I have asked about this ar Wikimedia Commons to no avail but every time I try to upload this .djvu file from the Internet Archive it rotates back to how it looked before, uploading using the UploadWizard doesn't seem to work either, and no matter what tool I use to position the pages correctly it seems to rotate back to the incorrect (original) scans. Is there a way I can rotate it at a Wikimedia project or could I just import it in an incorrect position and use it that way suggesting that the w:en:WP:READERS should rotate their heads 80° when they read it? -- DonTrung (徵國單)  (討論 🤙🏻) (方孔錢 ☯) 09:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes you just need to purge your cache, or wait a few days. Often, when a new copy of a large file is uploaded, the system continues to show you the older version for a time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I use a .pdf file for Wikisource[edit]

I have uploaded Commons:File:Annam and its minor currency (Eduardo Today y Güell).pdf which is a collection of scans from a book that I wish to import to Wikisource, but the scans always show 2 (two) pages at a time, can this be considered usable for Wikisource? -- DonTrung (徵國單)  (討論 🤙🏻) (方孔錢 ☯) 12:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

yes to pdfs, though often harder, and hold their text less well, so it is less desirable. Often this is why we upload PDFs to Internet Archive then bring them in through ia-upload tool. Yes to two pages per spread, and do a page count based on the left hand page, so usually numbers for every second page, noting that they are somewhat more painful to proofread. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Well, I have tried uploading it to the internet archive and then converting it to a .djvu file 📁, but this resulted in the image rendering rotated rather than correctly, so I had to give up, alright, I'll make it per 2 (two) pages. Maybe in the future someone that actually owns a physical copy of this book could scan and import this but as of now I will have to work with these options. How do I link 🔗 to a specific page 📃 in the .pdf file? -- DonTrung (徵國單)  (討論 🤙🏻) (方孔錢 ☯) 21:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed that the quality of these scans aren't perfect either, but that's what you get when you pirate gratis books from the internet. I have asked Pyvanet~commonswiki for a scan but he said that he was too busy so this is the only copy I could find while searching Vietnamese language websites. -- DonTrung (徵國單)  (討論 🤙🏻) (方孔錢 ☯) 21:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

TOC alignment[edit]

The TOC for A Treasury of War Poetry &c. used to be aligned. I am not sure what has thrown it off, but if someone knows how to correct this, please feel free to make changes to the first page or two, and then I can copy and take it from there. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks aligned to me. Can you describe what problem you're seeing? It might also help to know what system / browser you're using. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I am using Chrome. Parts (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND &c.) are centered, but Part sections (tables with author/title/page) are all aligned left, each with their own auto width. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Looks fine to me in Chrome... and your description seems to match the source material as well. Centered part headers, followed by sub-parts in three columns, aligned left except for the pages which are aligned right? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. Just on a whim, I adjusted my Chrome zoom setting. I usually have it set at 90%. All's good at 100%. Interesting that alignment is thrown at less than 100%. I guess I'll not worry about it! Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Making Amends:[edit]

In ignorance of style conventions and failure to request supervision, I published 35 pages authored by James Frederick Ferrier which he had contributed to The Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography (IDUB). In the same ignorance & haste, I also published the biography of Ferrier as contributed by a different author to the same work. My most serious failure seems to be that each publication was named using ALL UPPERCASE for the LAST-NAME of the author's object (i.e., the style used in IDUB itself). It is my intention to publish new (or move?) pages to comply with WS style conventions.

  • Are there other style conventions violated in those items already published which should also be corrected?
  • IDUB is a 3 volume publication. When I republish/move these or publish future IDUB items, what naming convention is best-practice?
  • By what steps would one have performed this feat: moved page Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography/Volume 2/FERRIER, JAMES F to Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography/Volume 2/Ferrier, James F. without leaving a redirect: move to style ?

Klarm768 (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I would go for Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography/Volume 2/Ferrier, James F., adding (birth date-death date) to disambiguate if needed. No redirect if you have not already cross-linked, given that pages are quite new. Also use relative links in previous/next.— Mpaa (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Further to this, since you will probably not be able to avoid leaving a redirect: edit the redirect page and replace its contents with {{sdelete|M2}} and someone will delete the redirect for you. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I believe I have corrected all the style errors and deleted the absolute links in previous/next. I believe this issue is solved, except that I would like to learn now how to close this "section" on Scriptorium... if that's my prerogative. Klarm768 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually you have killed the prev/next links; it would have been better to keep them as here Poems_(Coates_1916)/Volume_I/The_Ideal. And no need to close this section. It will pass away peacefully ...— Mpaa (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
1) I applied the literal-links prev/next on the fantasy that a Ferrier-aficionado might want to page through F's compositions without returning to the Author-page. 2) Besides that, I lack confidence my ability to generate relative-link syntax between widely separated segments. 3) On top of that, I presume that the relative-links ought properly be reserved for eventual full publication of the IDUB with sequencing preservation. Thus, I suppose, this section can be an ongoing illustration of deficiencies in need of address. Klarm768 (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Prev/next links usually are supposed to guide the reader to the book in page order, page after page (or section or chapter, depending on the strategy selected to transclude the text). For this text, IMHO it should be entry after entry, same order as the text. If you intend to work on selected entries, you can always leave a redlink prepared for. Hopefully, someone will jump in and fill the gaps sooner or later.— Mpaa (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
In the IDUB it is not uncommon for biographies to contain "relative links" (e.g. "a distinguished theologian, and son of the preceding") without naming the other party. I am working a strategy for the transclusion unit to be a single letter of the alphabet... while making accommodation for easy gathering of works of a particular contributor. Should such a strategy influence the naming convention? (As far as I know, I'm the only party proofing and publishing in IDUB... or having pages moved and made compliant. Klarm768 (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
In naming a contribution to IDUB are syntax/punctuation guidelines expressed somewhere? e.g. OLDENBURG (House of)? Permitted? Discouraged? Forbidden? OLYMPIODORUS (6th century Aristotelian) and OLYMPIODORUS (6th century neo-Platonist). I am averse to presuming identity from merely plausible matches to Wikipedia stubs. Klarm768 (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
WOOPS...Copy-&-Paste gets me in trouble again. I DO already know NOT to use upper-case... same question but substitute Oldenburg and Olympiodorus. Klarm768 (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


I posted a formatting question over at Template talk:TOCstyle about how to format hanging indented text split between two pages. If anyone is at all familiar with TOCstyle, and the template page is not on your watchlist, can you possibly add it? I figure the best place to ask related questions is at that Talk page for anyone who comes around with similar questions in the future. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Resolved. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

More TOC help requested[edit]

For this TOC. I tried drawing from my past contributions for the best way to format this TOC, as well as at TOCstyle and dotted page etc., but am at a loss. I gave it my best improvised shot, but I figure there is likely a better way. If someone can provide a basic outline, I can try to take it from there. Any help appreciated. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It is a template that I find its use error-prone, ugly to utilise and to fix, and resource intensive. Regularly see it cropping up in maintenance and error queues needing resolution. Not one that I can support, however, I'm just a ToC dinosaur. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
This TOC may require a dinosaur solution, and I was hoping one would be recommended... but my use of gaps for spacing, etc. just didn't seem appropriate or whatever the right word is :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Saurian 'nuff? 04:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Over the years you have been consulted on these things time and again and all I hear (still) is your whining. If you don't like it fix it! I no longer consult so you are free to do whatsoever you like. 04:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
MODCHK I am not criticising the authorship of the template and module, I am criticising its (mis)use. I find it hard to fix, and where it is over-/misused, absolutely laborious to fix, so I don't, and leave that to someone else, I have enough maintenance tasks. I don't play lua, its someone else's problem. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Criticise away. You have missed the point and that is the code was always a rush-job carried out in hopes of future consultation and/or modification by others. This never happened and now you are stuck with an anachronism. The fact it is still (mildly) usable after all this time without any maintenance must say something. If somebody wants to replace it with a better approach then please do so and welcome. Just remember to port over the current (over 170 main space) uses to whatever the new system may be. 08:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I hesitate to give my non-technical two cents, but here goes: I like using TOCstyle (as long as I can understand the hows and whys), and have continued to use it on occasion where it makes life easier for me, as I do not like building tables. And I appreciate *your* popping in to help on occasion (is that not 'consulting'?), but if there is no one else here willing to take up the mantle on behalf of TOCstyle, then I should probably look for an alternate solution if, in fact, the 170+ main space uses will one day need to be "ported over" in the future. If you have any suggestions for "basic" LJB-friendly table structures, I am all ears! unless you only prefer to give suggestions with regard to your brainchild (not said or meant sarcastically). Whatever is most help-ful. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst, @ I’ve started playing with Lua on Wikipedia. What needs to be done with this template? χchi (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to say thank *you*—thank you. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

screwed up 'validation' option[edit]

Hi. I marked Memorial of the Cherokees 'problematic' because of the large numbers of misreadings in it, but was informed that that's not the proper use of 'problematic'. So I changed it back to 'proofed', but now I no longer have the option of marking it 'validated' when I'm done proofreading it. Kwamikagami (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Question to anyone who knows: Wouldn't the fact that there is text marked illegible in the work be cause to keep the page marked as problematic anyway? Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
In the scholarly literature, when parts of a text are missing or blemished, they're either replaced with some holder symbol, such as ellipses, or reconstructed and set off in brackets. So I wouldn't think that makes the text problematic, just slightly incomplete. Of course, if we can find an image of another original copy of the text, we should be able to verify the two letters I was able to reconstruct and fill in the one I wasn't. Kwamikagami (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: you have a choice of not proofread, or problematic; these options are explained at help:page status. Generally we would use "problematic" where there is the need for an intervention.

With regard to the status recorded, there is hidden field that records the person who set the proofread flag, which you did with your change, and the flags don't let the person marked as proofread, to be marked as validated. In a situation that you faced, it has to be a revert to reset. Either way, it isn't a fuss, anyone else can validate the page and get around the issue. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

So I can just ask someone here then. When I finish, it will be proofread by two ppl in addition to the initial text entry, since I had someone else proof it and now I'm going over their version. Kwamikagami (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Where would you put the image[edit]

Hi. Where would you put the image in this case, see Women_of_distinction/Chapter_87? Top of the next chapter? Or ...? Thanks.— Mpaa (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

As for me, I would place it so that it is atop her bio in the Main. I don't know if there's a way to format to keep it on the same Index:page yet still transclude in next chapter...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I would also put it at the top of Chapter 88. You could use two <pages> tags or section tags to start transclusion from one page earlier. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for symbol to use..[edit]

Marked as a symbol missing as I hadn't found it quickly: Page:A general history for colleges and high schools (Myers, 1890).djvu/811

Suggestions? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it would be unreasonable to use "ɕ" for this; it's upside down but it fulfils the idea of "c-modified-with-curl". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Alternatively, some type of overstruck combining diacritic, e.g. "c̴" —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I just found this Abkhazian letter which would work admirably: "ҽ" —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks... What sound is it supposed to be representing?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The work uses the character to represent a hard ⟨c⟩ that makes a [k] sound. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Can you review the index pages I've attempted to clean up? Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
A cursory glance over page 811 looks good. I would not use "k" for the character discussed above; the author clearly intended to use a modified letter "c" to preserve the spelling while indicating the hard pronunciation. I'll proofread it using "ҽ". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, the stress marker appears to be a prime symbol ′ rather than an apostrophe '. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: I’m certain the author used the letter "C with bar" Ꞓꞓ as seen on page 813. unsigned comment by Χ (talk) .

Add text vs add PDF and index[edit]

I am confused as to what guidance to follow to properly contribute to Wikisource. I have read Help:Adding texts, and it seems to say that any text first needs to have its original scan uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and then have an Index created for it. However, I have looked at multiple U.S. Presidential Executive Orders (Author:Barack Hussein Obama/Executive orders) and I can't figure out wether those steps were taken for those texts. Could someone kindly clarify if the PDF upload and Index steps are required for all texts, or if there is some other guidance I should be looking at? Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 16:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It's very strongly preferred, and there have been some discussions around making it required. Adding a text without a DJvU or PDF upload and Index should only be done if no DJvU or PDF file can be obtained. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl:, thank you for kindly replying to my question. I am still a bit confused. An Index page for a work seems to be aimed at a work thet requires manual transcription. What about a work that is originally published as a text in PDF, from which it can be easily copied and pasted into wikisource. Specifically, the instance I am thinking of is this work in Wikimedia Commons, of which I created this Wikisource page. In this case, is an Index page necessary/desirable? I am still happy to do it, I just want to make sure that it is warranted. Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 10:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@Al83tito: yes, in this case an Index page is necessary so that fidelity to the source PDF can be ensured. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Splitting a page[edit]

Hi. Is there any way to cut a pdf page in half? There are pdf files which include two pages on one page. --Yousef (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Not that I have seen, I have just seen those that trim. You would also need to be aware that the text layer may not trim in the same way as the image as I don't believe that the text is x,y mapped to the image. I wouldn't fuss it as you can just as easily do the text checking. It does screw the page headers, and you do have to numbering on the Index for every second page; neither of which has been overly inhibiting in my experience. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Here’s what I used for Index:Casement Report.djvu: χchi (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Moving transcriptions from one index to another[edit]

Hi, @Billinghurst: described this process to me in broad strokes before, but I'd like to know how to do it myself.

I have uploaded a new file and created a

(The new one is more complete, with 11 pages preceding the previous document.)

I'd like to move the base page, and have it carry all its sub-pages with it. However, I'm not sure how to "renumber" them in the move process. (Page 1 in the old index should be page 12 in the new one, and so forth.)

Is there an automated or straightforward way to do this? -Pete (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC) T188122

??? if it is /1 to /1, then it is usually just do, THAT SAID, it is better for an administrator to do it as they can do it without redirects, and delete the false page that you create to do it. If it is not /1 to /1, then we would normally use pywikibot, and Mpaa has predominantly done those. This looks like /1 to /12 (and increment), which users cannot do except as one by one, and require cleanups. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's 1 to 12 -- I mistyped it above, sorry for the confusion. Thanks for the explanation. I'll come back with a more formal request later, but for now there is a glitch with the newly-uploaded file...I'll get that sorted out first. (bug report) -Pete (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Can do it. Let me know when you are ready.— Mpaa (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, @Mpaa:, it's ready -- thanks to @Brion VIBBER: for converting the file to a DJVU. Seems that the original PDF had problematic JPEG 2000 files. So, if you could move it here: Index:Report of the Park Board 1903.djvu (noting the page offset described above) that would be great! Thanks much. -Pete (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Done.— Mpaa (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this an OK way to handle footnotes?[edit]

Interesting situation at Oregon Historical Quarterly/Volume 4/The Educational History of Astoria, Oregon -- there's a footnote referred to from two different pages (p. 25 and p. 28). Could somebody look at the way I handled that, and let me know if there's a better way? (The page in question is still marked as "problematic" to make it stand out.) -Pete (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

That's how I would do it myself, so fine from my perspective. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I added a {{Reflist}} to the page 28 to encapsulate the ref in the footpage. Assassas77 (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you all -- the "display:none" option is one I wasn't aware of, and covers the one detail that was bugging me. All looks great now! -Pete (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I’ve removed the display:none; as it was introducing a small bug. I think the way it is here is better. χchi (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
What is the small bug? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Putting the ref in an extra div adds an extra back link that leads nowhere. χchi (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Fair. That's not really a bug, as there were actually two instances of that reference (one in the text, and one hidden). Your way appears better; I was not familiar with the refx parameter. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Is this something that we should mention on H:REF? χchi (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
If you want to work it in to the help page, I think that could be useful to people. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Explanation now at H:REF#Multiple pages that reference the same footnote. χchi (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

page not rendering[edit]

see for example [1] and the previous page [2]. No image file has been made. It's worked fine on all previous pages. Can someone look into this and see why it's happening like this.

DavidPorter65 (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it in a Server side issue with thumbnail generation for PDFs. I do not know if this is specific for this file or in general. I am inclined for the latter.— Mpaa (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I would concur with that "general" statement. They have been horribly slow where I have been looking at page images here. I am unaware whether anyone has submitted a phabricator: ticket. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC) (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Character Building[edit]

I have encountered a character for which I cannot discover a existing match. Basically its appearance would seem to match a Latin Capital "O" with a ring diacritic centered above it. Please advise me how to fill this blank: "A" is to "Å" as "O" is to "__"

Curiously, for the lower-case of the same word, this work uses circumflex diacritic, i.e. "ô" unsigned comment by Klarm768 (talk) .

Here you go: , or alternatively {{cdm|O|030A}}. This is O followed by COMBINING RING ABOVE. See also w:Ring (diacritic). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! (and I'll remember to sign this time) Klarm768 (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
hmmm... as a matter of fact I had already been to that Wikipedia page and created that sequence. However, in my editing environment (MS Word & Palalatino Linotype) the ring didn't sit on top of the "O" but on it's trailing shoulder. I was presuming it would look that way in wikisource too. Thanks to you, now I know otherwise. Klarm768 (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Advice / Help on importing file from IA[edit]

Can anyone please advice / help me with importing a file from IA?
It's about this file: It has a rather good ocr-layer in IA. I tried to import it to commons with the IA-upload tool. But that did not work properly. Next I tried to import the Djvu-file that was available in the IA-upload tool manually: c:File:PettyWilliam1899EconomicWritingsVol2.djvu. But as you can see here: Index:PettyWilliam1899EconomicWritingsVol2.djvu, it has no ocr-layer.

What shall I do now? Shall I import the pdf from IA? Or what?

(for your information: there is already an Index:William_Petty_-_Economic_Writings_(1899)_vol_2.djvu, but this file is a really bad. So I uploaded a new version to IA.)

Thanks, --Dick Bos (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Samwilson:? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid this is a known issue (phab:T159796), to which there is a solution but one that no one has found time to implement in IA Upload yet. :-( Sam Wilson 01:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
So we have to wait. Or is there a way to make it a bit urgent? WeeJeeVee (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Samwilson:, see bug report, I made some debug in djvuxmlparser. Hopefully solution might not be complex. But php is not my language.— Mpaa (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I proposed also a fix.— Mpaa (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Transclusion of second page of transcluded TOC unexpectedly shifted to right[edit]

Index:Manual of the Lodge.pdf

Why is the transclusion of the second page of the TOC shifted right?

There's no code on the relevant pages which should be doing this, and other {{TOCstyle}} usages DO NOT do this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The style set for the template is different on the second page than it is on the first. That might be causing the problem, but I don't ever use those templates, so I'm not personally familiar with them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Presumably @ShakespeareFan00 really meant the third page of the content sub-page? Choosing compatible models, font-variants and sub-alignments seems to work a bit better. (N.B. model=D.P was designed to align with model=C5D.P, not CD.P as was initially used. The "Chapter" is right-aligned in an implicit 5em width "column" which immediately throws the third page out [to the right] very nearly 2em with respect the earlier two pages.)
Surely all that detailed line-by-line style control can be further rationalised: that exercise is left to you. 16:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Difficulty formatting an article (wiki-Translation)[edit]

I would like to ask your assistance in helping me to align the translated English text alongside the original Hebrew in Translation:Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 3b–4b). For some reason unknown to me, the English translation in five of the designated places (rectangles) do not appear on the screen when the text is saved, although they all appear in the "edit-mode". What am I doing wrong?Davidbena (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

no image[edit],_ovt_of_the_authentical_Latin,_diligently_conferred_with_the_Greek,_%26_other_Editions_in_diuers_languages.pdf/178

a page image does not get displayed to the page. This was working fine up until a dozen or so pages ago. Can this be fixed? Is our pdf at fault? unsigned comment by DavidPorter65 (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2018.

I'm guessing this is the same issue that you mentioned before? Tâl (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Asteriskus inexplicibus[edit]

Obviously, asterisks perform functions in WS. I am prepping pages of a work with hundreds of asterisks for which I have so far discovered no meaning. Not footnotes. Not described in the front matter. Not explained in the back matter. Sometimes several per page. Perhaps a few thousand total. I suppose omitting them (my inclination) is not advisable in WS . How do I turn off their WS functionality? Klarm768 (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

If the asterisk is at the beginning of the line, {{*}} will prevent it from becoming a bullet point. If the asterisk is not at the beginning of a line, the parser will leave it as a regular asterisk anyway. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Would using a SIC template be acceptable? e.g. * Klarm768 (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it makes sense to use SIC to add commentary on the meaning of the asterisks, unless you think a reader is likely to think the asterisks are typos. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to the work, so that we can have a look? (I can't see anything in your recent edits that relates.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The work is comprised of three volumes (the third of which was downloaded in two pieces due to multiple failures to arrive to Wiki Commons as a single PDF). Volume_1 is Index:Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography Volume 1.pdf. Volume_2 is Index:Imperialdictiona02eadi Brandeis.pdf. Volume 3a is Index:Imperialdictiona03eadi Brandeis Vol3a.pdf. Volume 3b is Index:Imperialdictiona03eadi Brandeis Vol3b.pdf. (WS is having trouble displaying the PDF page images today. I work with downloaded PDF's so that's not an issue with me.) As illustration pages in Volume 3a, I suggest page 55 or page 98 or page 171 or page 478. Klarm768 (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I welcome any refutation of "the meaning of this asterisk is that it has no meaning."Klarm768 (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Per this ad, biographies of individuals still living at the time of publication are indicated by an asterisk in front of their name. I would suggest that if this is explained anywhere in the work itself, then a reference or {{tooltip}} providing this explanation would not be amiss (similar to Page:Manualofprayersf00cath.djvu/11). However, if it is not explained anywhere in the work itself, then providing that information as a user annotation would be inappropriate, but you could mention it in the header of The Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
That's a very impressive pick-up! Beautifully done! How did it occur to you to look where you did? I have been unable to find any comparable text contained within the work. (By my searching the text of all volumes, I find 49 instances of still living and 111 instances of surviving. 15-word-Proximity-searching for Imperial plus liv or biograp plus liv also failed to locate the internal evidence sought. I get LARGE hauls for liv and surviv but still not what you found. I will search again if you propose a different target.) Thanks for this external refutation. Klarm768 (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I did not find this information in the work itself either, having leafed through the front and end matter of the first and last volume... but the information contained in advertisements in other books was easily found, by Googling "Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography" "asterisk". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Broken link[edit]

The first URL in (Wikisource English translation of the (Latin) 1582 papal bull 'Inter gravissimas' instituting Gregorian calendar reform) on this page ( is no longer correct.

Yes check.svg Done fixed —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

How to upload a local copy of File:Hector Macpherson - Herschel (1919).djvu?[edit]

When I worked on this, I thought it was a US-only publication, so no problem having it on Commons. However, it turns out that it was by a British author who died less than 70 years ago, so @ShakespeareFan00: nominated for deletion on Commons. I just tried uploading a copy here, but I get the message "A file with this name exists already in the shared file repository. If you still want to upload your file, please go back and use a new name." - but uploading with a new name would presumably break the link with the proofread pages. Can someone help sort this out, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Because you are aware of the issue, I've withdrawn the deletion nomination, Once localised the file can be removed on Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: usually asking on WS:S and often adding a ping to me. I have moved the file here, so please pop into the file and update it for local conditions, and add a {{do not move to commons|expiry=year of death + 71}}billinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Mike Peel (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Table in footnote[edit]

Does anyone have a solution to make the table appear in the footnote on Page:America's Highways 1776–1976.djvu/56? I can get a table to embed within normal reference tags, but because there's a endnote reference within that footnote, I need to use {{#tag:ref|...|group=N}} for the footnote. Imzadi 1979  09:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: mw:Extension:Cite can be such an ugly beast and a source of constant frustration with its ordering of how it (mis)handles wikitext. In that situation it takes the pipe in the open table statement as a pipe in the #tag, rather than dealing with the table first. The means to force this is to use {{!}} which the system interprets as a | and gets through the wiki fight. I did the replacement, though did not check that I had it perfect, so will leave you to review that. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: thank you! I'd have eventually thought of that someday, and now I'll definitely remember that solution should this arrise again in any of the remaining hundreds of pages in the book. Imzadi 1979  22:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@Imzadi1979: no point in you getting the same scarred forehead. It is not that usual a required solution thankfully. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous/unknown UK copyrights; whether to include interesting back matter[edit]

I am interested in transcribing The Gallows and the Lash (1897) by Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner, published in London. You can see it on HathiTrust, although I don't have HT membership so would be downloading the PDF from Google Books for convenience.

The work itself is {{PD-old-70-1923}}, so fine on Commons. But included at the end, on pages 46 and 47, are two manifestos by the Humanitarian League. These are attributed to the League, not any named person or persons. I could not find any named authors from a basic Google search. They are not part of Bonner's work, but are interesting and relevant to it, and are included in the book because it was published by the League. My questions are:

  1. Should the manifestos be included with the final transcluded work? (If not, I can delete those pages from the scan and upload everything to Commons, fine.)
  2. If so, are they PD in the UK as e.g. c:Template:PD-UK-unknown? (So the scan can go on Commons) or should I just upload locally as PD-1923?

Thanks in advance. --BethNaught (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous works published in the UK are PD 95 years after publication. I might include them as a separate transcluded work with the appropriate license on their own. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Could you point me to the appropriate license tags for that please? BethNaught (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think {{PD-anon-1923}} applies. Although honestly I’d agree with Prosfilaes and simply include the section with the full work since that’s how it was published. χchi (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure it does apply; UK anonymous copyright law is more complicated than usual. I'll see what I can make of CDPA 1988 (text Crown Copyright, OGL v3):
  • §9 provides:

(4) For the purposes of this Part a work is of “unknown authorship” if the identity of the author is unknown or, in the case of a work of joint authorship, if the identity of none of the authors is known.
(5) For the purposes of this Part the identity of an author shall be regarded as unknown if it is not possible for a person to ascertain his identity by reasonable inquiry; but if his identity is once known it shall not subsequently be regarded as unknown.

  • §10:

(1)In this Part a “work of joint authorship” means a work produced by the collaboration of two or more authors in which the contribution of each author is not distinct from that of the other author or authors.
(3)References in this Part to the author of a work shall, except as otherwise provided, be construed in relation to a work of joint authorship as references to all the authors of the work.

  • §12:

(2)Copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies, subject as follows.
(3)If the work is of unknown authorship, copyright expires— (a)at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or (b)if during that period the work is made available to the public, at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available, subject as follows.
(4)Subsection (2) applies if the identity of the author becomes known before the end of the period specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3).
(8)The provisions of this section are adapted as follows in relation to a work of joint authorship or a work of co-authorship—(a)the reference in subsection (2) to the death of the author shall be construed—(i)if the identity of all the authors is known, as a reference to the death of the last of them to die, and (ii)if the identity of one or more of the authors is known and the identity of one or more others is not, as a reference to the death of the last whose identity is known; (b)the reference in subsection (4) to the identity of the author becoming known shall be construed as a reference to the identity of any of the authors becoming known;...

The first hurdle is making a "reasonable inquiry". IANAL so I don't know if moderate online research counts, but I'd be surprised if would stand up in court.
If we assume the author(s) are unknown, then indeed the works are PD in the UK.
If we assume that (some of) the people listed as founding members at w:Humanitarian League are co-authors of The Manifesto of the Humanitarian League, but there are no known other authors, then since they all died >70 years ago, it is PD.
The same considerations apply to the Manifesto of the Criminal Law and Prisons Department, except that we do not have any hints from Wikipedia about who the authors might be.
This is such a mess. As a Brit, I now wouldn't feel comfortable uploading or working on the manifestos, but it seems people prefer I not exclude them either. I guess I won't be working on this any time soon. Sorry for wasting people's time on this. BethNaught (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd include them with the full work as part of the full work as published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
+1 — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This page needs help with a chemical formula correction[edit]

Thanks in advance. — Ineuw talk 04:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no particularly "good" way of entering structural formulae within the restrictions of <ce> (much better to use an image approach.) Old-fashioned <math> can help a bit:
     &\,|      \\

looks thus:

- not great but a bit better? 06:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
It is great!. Thank you, whoever you are mysterious stranger. — Ineuw talk 07:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Very clever! Furthermore, in a math tag, to avoid italics, you can do \text{CH}. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 07:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Template for dotted lines with multiple columns?[edit]

Hi, could anybody suggest a more useful template than {{dotted TOC line}} (which is obviously not designed for this purpose, but is the closest thing I know of) for this text? As in, one that permits two different columns at the right-hand end? (Note, the use of the template is about halfway down, there are many changes in that one edit). -Pete (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if it's the best way, but you could do the table using ordinary table syntax and use {{dotted cell}} where needed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
See Special:Diff/7353903 for my suggestion using the col4 parameters. However, this is a bit of a hack since it’s not actually a TOC. Beleg Tâl’s suggestion is probably better: Special:Diff/7353945. [[User:|χchi]] (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Or just don't fuss trying to do dot leaders. They an unnecessary complication and we have never required their reproduction. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you User:Beleg Tâl & User:billinghurst. Looks like there's lots to learn about how this family of templates works, but by copying your example I was able to "fake it" and I think the results, if not perfect, are pretty good. If you have a moment please take a look at the tables here? Report of the Park Board, Portland, Oregon (1903)/Annual report of the Park Board One detail I'd like to address would be to specify the column width, so that when one table closely follows another, the columns in the two tables align. A small detail, but I think it would make the document more readable. -Pete (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I should be a little more specific. I do (sort of) understand how to use the width parameters of {{ts}} or in cells that do not use {{ts}}. But the specific collection of tables in this document presents a rather challenging case. For instance, see how the tables align in the original on this page. The table that begins "Warrants drawn..." introduces a third column of numbers, which butts into the text column, so that all the numerical columns align in a certain way. How can we replicate that characteristic, without rigidly specifying the width in pixels (which I think is something we should generally avoid)? -Pete (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
To me, it isn't a series of tables to me it looks like one looooong table with the formatting of financials. I would have looked to set it that way, and then used colspans. Then again I could just be crazy. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Not a bad idea @Billinghurst:, I might give that a try! Also...meant to ping @Χ: before as well, but missed you. -Pete (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
That worked really well, @Billinghurst:. Thanks again for the suggestion. Just wrapped this up and added to "new texts." -Pete (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Template / custom toolbar[edit]


I could really do with creating a custom list of templates in one toolbar or markup list for a mathematical document.

I am mainly using centered <math>, and references. There is a user section in the templates lists, but I can't figure out how to edit it.

Any tips? unsigned comment by Natty Stott (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC).

If you mean the CharInsert menu at the bottom of the edit window, it can be modified by adding to your user JS: Special:MyPage/common.js. Full instructions for adding to it are at CharInsert, but essentially, you may want something like this:
// Add custom CharInsert entries
window.charinsertCustom = {
 "User": ' Math: \alpha \beta',
Hope that helps, Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 11:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC). Yes that's it, thanks Natty Stott (talk)

Would it be ok for to scan and publish some historical paper documents in this space?[edit]

Would it be ok for to scan and publish some historical paper documents in this space? We want to digitally flesh out our history and make reference material available to support our WP article. ThanksCgsstl (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cgsstl: Yes, if ... They need to be within scope, see WS:WWI. That if there are copyright issues that you are the copyright holder directly or indirectly and able to step through the OTRS| process. If unpublished, and simply historical, then we would usually apply Wikipedia's notability requirement as a rule of thumb. If they are published works and not in copyright, then that is an easy yes. If they are not published, and in copyright and not notable people, then unlikely. We are always happy to explore where they fall on that continuum, and generally would look to see how we can include wherever reasonable. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

DJVU and index/OCR offset by one page[edit]

I may have done something wrong. At Index:Women of Ohio; a record of their achievements in the history of the state (Vol. I).djvu, the index pages (and OCR scans) do not align. They are off by one page (see for instance page "9"). For reference the commons file is here and the source file is located here. Please advise, thanks! Animalparty (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: It has occurred to me that the problem might lie with the original DJVU. When I uploaded it to commons, a "page zero" preceding the cover image seems to have been added, displaying the scanning color palette and rulers. This page is not present in (or at least not visible) in the version, nor the PDF version from It’s possible that a re-upload of the DJVU file with the first page omitted might fix the problem. Animalparty (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Animalparty: There are times when there is a glitch in a file that has the text layer and the image layer get out of place. Is there another version available to upload (overload). Not certain whether it can be rederived at source, or post source. djvu innards are black magic. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I transferred the .djvu directly from Internet Archive using the IA Upload tool. I don’t even see an option to download full djvu files from the source (at least nothing like the ~100 mb file already uploaded). Preliminary evidence suggests the OCR alignment problem also exists in File:Women of Ohio; a record of their achievements in the history of the state (Vol. II).djvu and File:Women of Ohio; a record of their achievements in the history of the state (Vol. II).1.djvu (I made but didn't save drafts of Index pages, and the same issue appears). I suppose I could try the PDF version (circa 41 mb, and text appears OCR compatible), but I'm leery about uploading too many files. Do you know of a way to diagnose OCR in PDFs (or .djvu) prior to uploading or should I just give it a shot? -Animalparty (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC) -Addition: I just noticed the above discussion DjVu from Internet Archive. I’ll try converting a PDF to a DJVU and overwriting existing files first. --Animalparty (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
As mentioned, I don't know beyond the basics about DjVu files. In this situation trying alternatives is fine, and if we need to a tidy up here and/or at Commons, then just ping me or one of the other dual admin rightsholders, and we will assist. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Update: It appears I’ve fixed the OCR alignment by uploading a new DJVU file converted from a PDF file. Thanks @Billinghurst: and @ShakespeareFan00:. --Animalparty (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Frown & Smile Overlay[edit]

Advice requested, thanks! I need to overlay two characters: a FROWN ⁀ and a SMILE ‿

2322 ⌢ FROWN

	 	→	2040 ⁀ character tie

2323 ⌣ SMILE

	 	→	203F ‿ undertie

Klarm768 (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Why not use U+2050 ⁐ CLOSE UP ? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Perfect! I thank you! Galileo's Saturn o⁐o thanks you! You astound... and so quickly! Where might a person who's never heard of it have gone to discover CLOSE UP herself? Klarm768 (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I was checking the Wikipedia article on w:Tie (typography)#Encoding to see if there was a combining diacritic that could be used for the purpose, and CLOSE UP was listed under similar characters. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Seeing as the terms FROWN and SMILE were used in the initial query:
works thus: oo. May not be appropriate to the context of Klarm768's intended use? 22:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
You are correct. If I had gotten what I asked for, it would not been as good as CLOSE UP. Here's a snapshot 'text' to to be emulated:
illustration of Saturn by Galileo
Klarm768 (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

DjVu from Internet Archive[edit]

The scans for Index:A History Of Mathematical Notations Vol I (1928).djvu are often cropped which hides a part of the text (see this page). I found another version at but I don't know how to get the DjVu file. Can someone help me? χchi (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@X:, there is a "show all" link you may not have seen at the bottom of the list of files. It'll take you to this page, where you will see the DJVU file. -Pete (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
But the only files I can see are djvu.txt and djvu.xml. Which one should be used? χchi (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Χ: There is no djvu there. You have three options. You can download the pdf and create djvu offline; and then overwrite the currently uploaded file with the new one. Second, you can shift the file from IA to Commons with the IA upload tool under a new name; djvu will be created in transit; then the current index will need deletion. Third, you can shift the pdf to Commons using the url2commons tool. Hrishikes (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry @X:, I didn't look closely enough before answering. Looks like you got a good answer from Hrishikes though. -Pete (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Peteforsyth, @Hrishikes: Is it possible to replace File:A History Of Mathematical Notations Vol I (1928).djvu with the new File:History Of Mathematical Notations Vol I (1928).djvu and move the Pages accordingly? The Pages should be incremented by 1. χchi (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Χ:, you might consider uploading the new DJVU file as a "new upload" to the original file name, rather than creating a separate file on Commons, if the new file is overall an improvement. (Or if you don't, you might want to nominate the old file for deletion at Commons.) As far as incrementing, it's my understanding that there's no automated way to do that (or at least, no easy automated method). Since you only have about a dozen pages transcribed so far, I think just moving them manually might be the easiest thing. -Pete (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good, I’ll do that. Thanks for the feedback. χchi (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, the problem is that the OCR is still from the previous scan. How should it be updated? χchi (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Χ: Possibly @Mpaa: can help with this incremental page move? Hrishikes (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Χ: Oh, I understand. That's a tricky one, and I suppose a problem with the underlying file, not with anything on Wikimedia. So I think you'll have to fix the file first, and then upload a new version. (Or else, just use the "OCR" button on each page as you edit, to have Wikisource generate its own OCR...but that will be a hassle.) I don't know a thing about editing DJVU files, unfortunately. There are a number of OCR-related tips at Help:DjVu files, but I can't vouch for any of them. I'd be interested to hear if anybody knows an easy answer to this though, it would be good to know how to deal with issues like this. -Pete (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment(ec) Upload a new djvu file via IAupload, to a new file name. When you need pages moved, generate a paired list of before and after (names of files, and whether we are going from /1 to /1, /2 to /2, ..., or an offset, or generate a mapped list and link to it from a request at WS:BR. Numbers of us can do something from there. Just make our job as easily as possible by clarity of task. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:, does this entail first uploading the new/corrected DJVU file to IA? -Pete (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Isn't that what I have said? iaupload takes the jp2000 images of the file, and pairs them with the djvu.xml layer for the file (as I understand the process). Then you are wanting an admin to move the proofread pages into place according to the provided mapping. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
It sounds like the answer is no -- you're saying that ia-upload will generate a DJVU file on the fly from the source files, rather than uploading the existing DJVU file. So, no need to upload a corrected DJVU to IA prior to uploading to Commons. Thanks for clarifying. -Pete (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: It is not like that. If a djvu file exists, IAupload will upload that only. If it does not exist, then IAupload will create a new one. Moreover, if a file was previously added to Commons using IAupload from the same IA address, you cannot reupload from the same address using IAupload, even to a new file name; IAupload will refuse it. Hrishikes (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, Hrishikes (talkcontribs). FWIW I also found this bit of info about the tool, which I had overlooked prior to the present discussion. -Pete (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I also found Help:Internet Archive, and noticed that IA Upload actually gives the user a choice of using an existing DJVU or PDF, or composing something from the JP2 files. I'm curious whether the latter option will upload the full-resolution JP2's, or downsize them. (I'm guessing it downsizes them, as the file size would be rather enormous otherwise.) I'm trying a test right now, on File:Eleven years in the Rocky Mountains and a life on the frontier 2nd copy.djvu, which has much higher quality scans than Index:Eleven_years_in_the_Rocky_Mountains_and_a_life_on_the_frontier.djvu does. I'd imagine I will still need to work with @Hesperian: and their bot to get the full-res versions, though. I'll update Help:Internet Archive with any info I learn. -Pete (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Update -- when building a new DJVU, it IAupload indeed creates lower-resolution versions of the images. -Pete (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Reason for sexual crime by human beings and preventive measures therefor as mentioned in Religious Granthas(Books)[edit]

Dear Sir,

Since this is a burning problem I want to contribute onthe subject based on my concrete study with reference to Religious Granthas.

I request to guide the procedure so that time to time my writings may get response/querries from a member ony religion or mythology on ongoing basis so that their doubts querris may be relied for their satisfaction in best possible way without sticking to any particar mythology in aneutral and universally applicable way for all human beings which is based on individual study and reserchfor decades.

Thanking you in anticipation.

unsigned comment by RAMESH KUMAR BAJORIA (talk) .

@RAMESH KUMAR BAJORIA: On Wikisource we collect written works that are either published or of historical importance, and which are either freely licensed or in the public domain. If you want to upload a work on this subject to Wikisource, and the work follows our rules for what is allowed to be uploaded, then please proceed to upload the work to Wikisource. I have placed some helpful resources on your talk page which will help you understand how to upload these works. If you need help, you can ask questions on this same page, or on my talk page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Page numbering[edit]

I have a couple of strange things with page numbering. On this index page, I tried to identify page 248 as "215", and page 294 as "252" (in the pagelist). But somehow, the wrong numbers are reflected. I've tried refreshing and purging the cache, to no avail. Any ideas what's up? -Pete (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You should define the page number in the right order. Right now, the fact that you have 230=199 after 248=215 resets the page number for 248. χchi (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Aha! I did not realize I had made that mistake, but I also didn't realize it was sensitive in that way, so I didn't consider that possibility. Thanks for the quick diagnosis! -Pete (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Any insights into Google search indexing?[edit]

I searched "It would undoubtedly prove a very valuable asset to the city hereafter." on Google, to see how our transcription of Olmsted report on Portland, Oregon parks would perform in search results. It did not show up at all! The report has been fully proofread and complete (and pointed to the proper set of pages) since March 5, 2018. The underlying page in question has been complete since 2012.

I have run similar tests on other texts, with better results. Perhaps this has something to do with having originally transcribed the pages from an inferior scan, and then migrating the pages over? I'm curious if anybody has insights into why this does not display in Google search results. -Pete (talk) 04:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Extra blank lines[edit]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I have two pages within The Improvisatrice in Commons that have an extra blank line following the closing </poem>. (Pages 209 and 210). These cause an unwanted break in the poem in the wikisource version of the overall poem. I cannot edit them out. I remove them and they just reappear.
@Esme Shepherd: How does it look for you now? Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Esme Shepherd (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

  • That's fine. Thank you. I'm not sure what happened, as I've never had that trouble before. I do find those spaces from time to time but they've always edited out before.
I can't say what happened technically either. I just tidied up line spaces and got rid of some sort of box marking that I don't have the name for. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Error in index page[edit]

Index:Ensuring Long-Term U.S. Leadership in Semiconductors.pdf shows "Error: Numeric value expected". How to solve it? I want to create the pages on enws and then make my own Chinese translation on zhws for this document.--維基小霸王 (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Your file is of zero dimension, please reupload. Hrishikes (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
It says they are the same. Can you help me to upload from [3]? Thanks.--維基小霸王 (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what the problem is, but I used the site to convert the PDF to a DJVU file, and re-uploaded it. It seems to work better, maybe this will work for you: Index:Ensuring Long-Term U.S. Leadership in Semiconductors.djvu -Pete (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much.--維基小霸王 (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Problems with the <ce></ce> display, and reference font-size appearance[edit]

  • On page 121 and page 124 the <ce></ce> enclosed formula displays the decimal point in the middle instead of the base line. Would someone in the know correct this so that I may learn something?
  • A named reference starting at the bottom of page 147 continues for the next two pages, but don't appear in the small character reference format. Can something be done about it?
PS: Please ignore the fact the reference ends incomplete. — Ineuw talk 06:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Not exactly sure of the issues you are describing, both work for me. The decimal point displaying baseline—using MathML with SVG or PNG fallback. The long reference number 3 displaying when transcribed. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Billinghurst:. I tried to keep the line height as the surrounding text by using <ce></ce> because <math></math> renders the text larger. As for the reference, your magic did the trick. When I validated it, the text size was normal. — Ineuw talk 00:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Why do we need math or ce here? We are talking about the presentation of values in a paragraph, not trying to represent some magic formula, so 2.75 × 1019 should be suitable representation and in line with our style guide. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Let's just say that I got carried away. Actually, I am partial to having large symbols ✕ in a math formula and only now I found the code at Wikipedia. — Ineuw talk 03:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Text is out of copyright but the scans are claimed to be copyrighted[edit]

I'm trying to add early Arizona session laws to Wikisource. has 8 of them and I started adding the first one here but found out that it's missing two and a half pages of text (pages 83, 84, 85). I found a much better copy here but it's claimed to be copyrighted. Can I still use it just to add the missing uncopyrighted text without uploading the scans? Could I do it for other session law books that there is no public domain scans? I'm new to Wikisource and been trying to go through the help pages for answers but they all talk about uploading scans first so it's not clear if I could add public domain text without uploading scans. Thanks, -Riley AJ (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

(Mandatory IANAL disclaimer) This is what's called "w:sweat of the brow" copyright - the idea is that because someone expended effort to make the scans, they get a new copyright on it, even though they didn't add anything creatively to make the scans a derivative work imbued with a new copyright. This doctrine has been rejected in the United States, so the claim of copyright cannot be enforced (anyone can claim copyright of a PD work: this is w:copyfraud, but is not always done knowingly - many people just slap on the "default" copyright notices). The story might be different in other jurisdictions (it's murky in the UK, for example, where it used to be asserted, but recently has been ruled against). If you're a US contributor contributing US PD works which were scanned in the US, there should be no issues. Given that Wikisource is hosted in the US, I am unsure what would happen if you, the work, or the scanning occurred in a jurisdiction where sweat of the brow is asserted, but as WS can host works that are not PD in other jurisdictions, there's possibly an argument to be made that it would be acceptable anyway. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
WRT to uploading works without scans available - it is acceptable (and accepted) at English Wikisource that works can be contributed without scans. Wherever scans are available, they should be used. Works without scans should also have a source for the text. Other language Wikisources vary on this point. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have clarified that I'm not looking for legal advice but rather Wikisource policy. Searching more I just noticed the PD-scan tag that was added to the file I uploaded which had the relevant information, Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag and Wikilegal/Sweat of the Brow -Riley AJ (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Riley AJ: No scans means no further validation/verification, just a nude text, and as a community we place limitations on texts that are that way, primarily for old works. It means that we cannot check differences in editions, know a transcription error from a publisher's error, etc. [Modern electronic documents obviously have a different assessment criteria.] — billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Help correcting Ancient Greek usage[edit]

There is one word of Ancient Greek here. I can't work out what this says. Any help appreciated. Celuici (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The word is κενοσπουδοι. Maybe the the ου ligature ȣ made it difficult for you to figure it out? Jpez (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
To note that we also have {{Greek missing}} if you wish to mark it for another. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much all. I will update the text later. Celuici (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

"This site can't be reached"[edit]

I just edited a page, and clicked proofread-publish. I get the above message (Chrome). Do I refresh? or go back to get the info? Or is it a gonner? I realize that by the time I get an answer I could have re-edited the page, but this is for future reference. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you link to the page? If so, an independent set of eyes can see what it looks like from our end. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
It's currently at,_its_gurus,_sacred_writings_and_authors_Vol_1.djvu/362&action=submit
, where the message appears. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: When I face this kind of situation, I go back by pressing the back button on the address bar of the browser. This happens when there is a loss of connectivity. So open a new tab and open Google or some other site in that tab. If that opens, then press back on the Wikisource tab. Usually you will get back your edited page. The link you provided currently shows the OCR layer, as it should. Hrishikes (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Back worked. Funny I have never met with this before now :) Just trying to figure out how these things work! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Cladograms (evolutionary trees)[edit]

I'm wondering how best to handle diagrams of Cladograms (aka evolutionary trees or phylogenetic trees) on Wikisource. Cladograms can range from very simple (see here) to complex (see here), but fundamentally are branching, hierarchical diagrams. Is there a template, table or other Wikimagic that can simulate these diagrams? perhaps {{Familytree}} or {{Chart}} could be tweaked? Template:Cladogram is the conventional standard on Wikipedia articles with evolutionary trees, but its horizontal format doesn’t as faithfully reproduce vertical cladograms. Any suggestions appreciated. --Animalparty (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

In which work do you need a cladogram? We do not host dynamic documents, so usually we save images as image files, rather than dynamically generating them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I am unaware of any mediawiki tool that exists to generate these. Maybe there is an external tool that can generate such as an SVG to be uploaded to Commons. (best that I can generate as a solution). — billinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
w:List of phylogenetic tree visualization softwarebillinghurst sDrewth 02:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
If you want to translate, or search, or read in Braille, having transcribed text can be a great help.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: See Page:Evolution of Life (Henry Cadwalader Chapman, 1873).djvu/21 and Page:Evolution of Life (Henry Cadwalader Chapman, 1873).djvu/69, consisting simply of lines and text, not that dissimilar from words arranged in a table with complex alignment and formatting. Other similar diagrams might include organizational charts and workflow diagrams. Simple lines and words differ from images, in my opinion. I had asked a similar question back in 2015 ("Should we recreate line diagrams or use original scans?"), and it seemed at the time that there was disagreement on best practices. --Animalparty (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Special characters like the ct ligature - how to proofread it?[edit]

I am proofreading the The Life of Benvenuto Cellini which is full of the special character ct with an arch connecting the two characters. I found some references on the web but the codes given do not render at all  &ctlig;. Is it OK if I use standard text? — Ineuw talk 04:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's just a fancy way to write ct; there's no need to mark it in any transcription.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
YesY it is what the community discussed several years back. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Remember it being discussed, so I am a bit embarrassed for not remembering the outcome. — Ineuw talk 04:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2011-02#Template:Ligature Latin st lowercase et al, and predominantly because it breaks search. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Which is fair but the real solution is to fix search. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Or we can not get hug up in some archaic trend of a compositing time and reproduce the text, and make proofreading easier. Our purpose is not to have a facsimile, it is to reprdocue the author's work in a reasonable way. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Ligatures are font dependent.  is not a standard Unicode character; it is in the Private Use area, and is only for use between people with their fonts matching. (This one might be from Apple, so useful between Mac users, but not portable to the rest of the world.) On my Linux system, I come up with Korean character bits... and not even the same ones!?! There is no standard way to encode a ct ligature separately from ct.
You only need a ct ligature if you're making a digital facsimile.(*) The only reason to produce a digital facsimile at all is if your scans are pretty bad and for some reason you want to exactly reproduce the original, in which case you need to make a PDF of the exact page size, match the fonts as closely as possible, match the line endings exactly, etc.; otherwise, just lay the computer readable text behind the scans you have. We aren't remotely doing digital facsimiles; HTML is a lousy medium for them, and MediaWiki even worse.
(*) The exception might come in the field of typographic trickery, like the mouse's tail in Page:Lewis Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.djvu/57, which we do rather poorly and I don't have any good advice on how to do it better. Again, HTML and MediaWiki aren't the best mediums for stuff like that. In the case of ct-ligatures, an author could drop into a ligature rich font or a heavy use of ligatures in the current font, to signify some difference. I don't know what to say about that, but it's a bridge we should worry about crossing if we get there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Endnotes to footnotes?[edit]

I'm working on History of Oregon Newspapers, a surprisingly entertaining read. It has an entire section of notes, starting on page 528. I'm planning to create one Wikisource page per chapter or section. My inclination is to convert the "end-of-book" notes to "end-of-section" notes, which would permit the use of <ref> tags, would permit the reader to click back and forth easily, etc.

This constitute be a greater deviation from the original text than I am accustomed to making, so I thought I'd float the idea here before I get started. How have others handled similar works? -Pete (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: I have just belatedly searched the archives, and see that this topic has been extensively discussed in the, no need to put much time into an answer, I'm doing my reading now... -Pete (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I see that my preferred approach is endorsed as option #1 at Help:Footnotes_and_endnotes#Endnotes. I blame my lack of due diligence on foggy morning brain. -Pete (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

It's always good to document your decision (with a pointer to guidelines) on the Talk page of the Main page for the entire work. That way, someone coming along later will understand what has been done and why. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip, I'll do that...and maybe should think about similar notes on some other works I've transcribed. -Pete (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Typos in original[edit]

Hello. I created this entry, and I have a question about it: what do we do when there is a typo or a clear error in the original text? For example, in my entry the original text says " pocketed $500 million the South" but what the author meant to say is " pocketed $500 million [from] the South". What are the rules when putting a text into Wikisource? Do we transcribe the original text verbatim and leave it at that, or do we also add in brackets the occasional word or letter that was erroneously excluded? I looked for guidance in the Wikisource rules, but I could not find anything addressing this point. Thank you. (talk) user:Al83tito 04:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Al83tito: Use {{SIC}}, and it would be over the empty span. {{SIC|$500 million the}} which renders as $500 million the. If you think it necessary to predict the word then you can do $500 million the though that is predictive on the proofreader's behalf so not considered needed. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Dear @Koavf:(Justin) and @Billinghurst:, thank you for your responses! It seems that there are some ideas for solutions, and not one spelled-out policy. Thanks! I have now used the SIC template as billinghurst kindly illustrated.(talk) user:Al83tito 02:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Al83tito: The policy is reproduce as seen, the secondary aspect is sort of covered by Help:Annotating. There is no requirement to add the components, generally the additions are helping to show that it is not a transcription error. From there it is the clarity of the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Couple pages to validate[edit]

If anyone be willing. There's just a couple pages left to validate in this work. The pages are not transcluded, but I'd still like closure. Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks much @Peteforsyth:! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem! -Pete (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Illegible (for me)[edit]

Can someone please confirm for me the spelling of the text marked illegible in the footnote of this page? Thanks much, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

OOp... I got it... Goeben. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Index:A Doll's House and two other Plays by Henrik Ibsen.djvu[edit]

2 concerns..

  1. The OCR layer is out by one, (all though currently all the relevant scans seems to be present.
  2. The Bibliography text appears not to have a direct credit as to who wrote it. Given that it only goes up to 1908, I am being reasonable in assuming in good faith that it's one of the translators that compiled it for a 1910 edition (later reprinted in the 1930's)? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Before starting, it's highly recommended that you search all available volumes at IA and see if they contain the missing pages here and replace the commons copy. — Ineuw talk 02:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
There are no missing pages that could be determined, I said as much "all the relevant scans seem to be present", Certainly if there were scans missing, I would be looking at IA for alternative scans, but that isn't necessary. What is needed is for someone that is able to do to regenerate the Djvu file with a correctly aligned text layer. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
See (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A layout problem of a two volume project[edit]

I am working on this two volume project and need advice on how to deal with two issues related to the main namespace layout.

  1. The first problem is that in the original, some 80+ pages of the first volume is published at the beginning of the 2nd volume.
  2. The second is that, excluding the introduction and foreword, the first volume consists a single titled chapter of 288 pages, which is then broken down to 100 chapters titled only with Roman numerals. Should I create 100 main namespace pages for each numbered chapter? The pages are not long, the longest is less than 300 words of about 1580 characters, and a chapter average is 3 pages. — Ineuw talk 01:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg opinion I, personally, would not fuss over replicating the volumes of a work with volumes as part of the naming hierarchy if there is the clear sense that it was produced as volumes solely due to page/bind restrictions. If it runs well at enWS as work/subpages, let it do so.

To large chapters, and their subdivision into lesser chapters or parts, that is a hard one without knowing the work more intimately. My thoughts are what makes sense as break, and is what you are considering robust for the work; does it add to bits being referenced, or sorted, or subparts being listed at Wikidata; or even the presentation and flow as webpages; desktop or mobile. It is always a bit of a courageous decision to break the original chaptering, though the book to web conversion should always be a consideration. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Billinghurst: this really helps a lot. After reading your post, I know how to deal with the volumes, as well as the chapters' breakdown.
The work is available in a single volume on IA. It is from another publisher, and I was contemplating to replace it. The text is the same, since both use John Addington Symonds's translation. But I decided to use this publication because there are more than twice as many images of the artist's works, along with historical figures with whom he interacted. Besides, these images were prepared and uploaded to the commons years ago. — Ineuw talk 06:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Images already uploaded? Like a box of chocolates! — billinghurst sDrewth 06:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Images were uploaded two years ago. That's how long I put off the proofreading. It's favourite book of my youth. — Ineuw talk 09:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg opinion I've had a couple of works with a similar problem of "chunking" the text. One suggestion is to see whether there is a LibriVox recording that matches your edition, and see how they split up the work. If you split our copy into the same pieces, it would be easier to align with LibriVox recordings. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey:Very interesting, thank you. — Ineuw talk 00:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Text layer offset by one page[edit]

The text layer of Index:Atlantis Arisen.djvu appears to be offset by one page. Is this something that can be corrected by bot, or is there a better way to address? (FWIW, I started this work primarily out of interest in the images, of which I've uploaded about half from the JP2 files on Internet Archive. I don't plan to start transcribing the text in earnest any time soon.) -Pete (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

See above ticket in Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#Index:A Doll's House and two other Plays by Henrik Ibsen.djvu.— Mpaa (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

{{TOC begin}} and family..[edit]

Currently these use a |- at the end of a nominal table 'row' .

However with the new parser this may create an issue with seemingly fostered content.

The relevant row marker should be at the start of a row (or template), but my last attempt to re-do this family caused sufficient issue that it was reverted entirely.

Can someone with template skill please re-write the above family so it's compatible with the new parser as a number of existing works use it extensively? Thanks.

Also placing {{nop}} at the start of a table run (required due to a long standing issue with the need for placeholders for Proofread page added numbers) causes multi-page tables to render badly on transclusion. {{nopt}} can be used in preference where appropriate, but it would be so much easier if this long standing issue was actually fixed in the core/Proofread page extension, than having to continually recall which 'kludge' is needed in which circumstance. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Which pages are causing issues here? A quick survey of a few users of these templates shows that they pass linter checks OK. I don't think it matters whether the new row markup |- is at the start or end of the template. As noted, and as for any cross-page table, you will need a {{nop}} to prevent the last line of the first page and first line of second page being concatenated into a single line of invalid table markup prior to rendering. Moving the row break markup won't prevent this requirement.
Some table-based TOC pages have linter errors caused by having that |- markup in the header and the body. This causes a fostered content warning as the markup in page namespace only is:
| in header
|-       <-- Delete this to fix
{{nop}}  <-- No leading |, this will be fostered content
| in body
An example of this was Page:A Study of Mexico.djvu/20, which is easily fixed by removing the extra |-. Could this be your problem?
Also, as far as I know (i.e. not far), fostered content warnings are not renderer-specific and the output won't change suddenly after change-over, which is why they aren't classified as high priority. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: the row start marker at the end of the template is seen to be involved in breaking page numbering for transcluded pages. I have always been intrigued by the practice to end a table with a new row marker, either in a template or by additional code. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The memory of this from 2010 is hazy, but new experimentation indicates that this may have been due to handling line breaks in the Wikitext. Consider a table like this:
{{TOC begin}}

{{TOC row 1-1-1|I|Chapter 1|1}}

{{TOC row 1-1-1|II|Chapter 2|20}}

{{TOC end}}
With the templates as they are now, with the row marker at the end, the expanded Wikitext becomes something like this (simplified) markup:

| I || Chapter 1 || 1

| II || Chapter 2 || 20

The newlines after |- but before the first table cell seem to be ignored by the parser (and don't seem to cause lint errors). With the row marker at the start, it would be:
| I || Chapter 1 || 1

| II || Chapter 2 || 20

Notice that now the inter-row-template newlines are part of the final cells of each row, and therefore can show up in the output. Actually, this only seems to happen when there are two or more newlines, so as long as:
  • The row templates don't follow a trailing |- with a newline and
  • Template users only ever separate the rows with a single blank line
then the row marker could be moved to the start of the template without causing disruption in most (all practical?) cases.
As for why the page numbering script doesn't work, that seems to be because in the current case, imagining that the Chapter 2 row falls on a second page, the generated HTML (before MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js runs and changes everything) is currently like:
    <span class="pagenum ws-pagenum" id="5" data-page-number="5" title="Page:Sandbox.djvu/5">
  <span class="pagenum ws-pagenum" id="6" data-page-number="6" title="Page:Sandbox.djvu/6">
     <td>Chapter 1</td>
     <td>Chapter 2</td>
In this case, it does look like the .pagenum span is being "fostered" and moved to the start of the table, but presumably it's done by the Proofread-Page extension rather than core Mediawiki rendering, hence it's not something the linter sees? Something like this, perhaps:
  <span class="pagenum ws-pagenum" id="6" data-page-number="6" title="Page:Sandbox.djvu/6"><!-- gets fostered -->
| II || Chapter 2 || 20
Since all the pagenums are in the same place (before table start), only one is made visible by PageNumbers.js. Moving the row marker to the start produces the following:
    <span class="pagenum ws-pagenum" id="5" data-page-number="5" title="Page:Sandbox.djvu/5">
     <td>Chapter 1</td>
       <span class="pagenum ws-pagenum" id="6" data-page-number="6" title="Page:Sandbox.djvu/6">
     <td>Chapter 2</td>
So the span is inserted in the table in a vaguely sensible place (end of the previous page's row).
Aside: In an ideal world, it would be possible for the page number span to occur at the start of the row as it currently is, but without being fostered to the table start, as the best place for it would be the start of the "Chapter 2" row. However, I doubt this is possible, as the Proofread-Page extension can't know that it has to insert the marker not-quite-at-the-start of the page's markup to avoid fostering.
In summary, it probably is both possible and a good idea to move the row marker to the template start, as this can mostly fix page numbering, but care needs to be taken to make sure that TOCs don't suddenly start inhaling newlines between rows, which would then start to matter. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Index:Armistice Day.djvu[edit]

This was previously validated, but I'd like to get this to near perfect status, so it can be promoted to featured status in November.

Naturally I'd like there to be more than one set of eyes looking for every obscure typo you can think of.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Linking illustrations[edit]

I have just one bothersome issue with a work I've been chipping away at for a while. I need to finish the linking for the list of illustrations: Eleven years in the Rocky Mountains and a life on the frontier/Illustrations

It seems to me there are three possibilities:

  1. Link to the chapter, with an anchor to the location of the image
  2. Link to the "Page" namespace
  3. Link to the "File" namespace

Number 1 seems like the most appropriate, since it places the image in context, and will be generally familiar to the reader. Also, the link might have the chance (slim though it may be) of "surviving" a conversion to PDF or another format, and being functional in an offline version.

However, in a few cases there are two or three images in a chapter. (e.g., chapter 5.) So, unless there's a trick I'm missing, there's no way to link to the images with an anchor tag, since the anchor for both is the word "#plate". Both links would target the first image.

What's the best way to approach this? -Pete (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

In principle {{anchor}} is one possible solution. 07:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
What about using {{anchor+}} with the image as the visible text? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Just link to the page number: Eleven years in the Rocky Mountains and a life on the frontier/Chapter 5#94 unless I misunderstand what you are trying to do? Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all! I will use one of the anchor templates, where needed. @Londonjackbooks: that works fine for images that are on pages with text, but most of the images are on plates of their own, so there is no page number; the plate, for instance, comes between pages 5 and 6. I suppose I could link to page 5 in a case like that, but it feels...inelegant :) -Pete (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: From the main namespace we should not be directly linking to the Page: ns—outside of the marginal page numbering. Readers will just confused and lost being dumped there. Our main namespace linking should only be to our presentation level pages. We have tried to have our linking overt and non-surprising, and even somewhere like author ns it is why things like {{ext scan link}} exist rather than hyperlinking a work name (our old practice). — billinghurst sDrewth 23:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Billinghurst:, sounds like my goal is in alignment with standard practice, then. Good to have that confirmation! Now that I have a plan, I'm hoping to wrap this last bit up in the next 24 hours. -Pete (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: I was recently flipping through The Water Babies, and noticed that User:Cygnis insignis [ inelegantly ;) ] linked to previous pages before the appearance of plates in the illustration TOC for the work. It may have merely been a simple formatting choice, or there may have been a considered reason for such linking. I would guess the latter, but I would be prone to. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


I am validating The Bet by Anton Chekhov. On pages 13, 21, and 23, I see "1", "B", and "B2" in their footers respectively. Should I insert them? 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: Those are binder's marks, not needed in digital version. Hrishikes (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Reusability of a transcription CC0 published in a file[edit]

Hi there,

An acquaintance of mine working in a university of Taiwan has published here a transcription of this work Index:English-Chinese Vocabulary of the Vernacular Or Spoken Language of Swatow.djvu. I was wondering whether we could republish here, splitting and matching the pages? Do we need an authorization for that? In what form? He told me that the work of transcripting that dictionary was basically CC0.

Assassas77 (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the answer is no, there isn't authorization needed -- here's how I see it, from what you've described:
  1. The work itself is in the public domain
  2. A strict transcription does not add any creative element (see "sweat of the brow" in copyright law), so -- according to my understanding (and I'm not a lawyer) it's not possible to attach copyright to the transcription of a work that is in the public domain.
  3. I'm pretty sure #2 is accurate, but even if I'm wrong -- if the transcription work is "basically" CC0, all you'd need is a written assurance that it is in fact CC0, published somewhere you can link to. -Pete (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Taiwanese copyright rules are tricky in this case: c:Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs#Taiwan. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Though it only talks about about printing, and reproduction of that print. Electronic transcription, especially into a non-print format (a format not like PostScript or PDF), seems outside those rules.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Have you asked them if they are willing to release their manuscript under a Creative Commons license? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm gonna ask them more information about the license they are putting on this work. I mean... for now, it is only a raw file with no licensing information. I'll provide more information soon. Assassas77 (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

For Wikisource's purposes, we don't need a license for a simple transcription. We can use it as is, no matter what Taiwan's copyright laws say.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Index:Cricket, by WG Grace.djvu[edit]

Once the tables in this are proofread, this will be ready for validation, any takers for filling out the remaining tables which are largely a data entry task? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I've run into situations like this, where data that might have been highly interesting as data presents a major impediment to completion of an otherwise prose-oriented work. In this case, it seems to me that if people are truly interested in cricket data at this level, maybe a site analogous to has already imported the data into an actual database, or will. I am not sure that an HTML table is a meaningful or useful step toward that.
Would Wikisource editors consider it acceptable to simply include these pages as images, which would take vastly fewer person-hours (which could otherwise, I would think, be spent on more enjoyable and more useful tasks)? I kind of hope so, but I'm curious what others have to say. -Pete (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
(To be clear, if your preference is to enter them as data in this case, I have no quarrel with that, and I'll even try to pitch in a bit. My question is about the general standards and expectations.) -Pete (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
In the end I used {{aligned table}} for many of them, but a better way of doing tables like this (for possible later Wikidata use) is proabbly a longer disscussion.ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
Sorry if that was an unwelcome distraction. Now that I explore the work in more depth, I see that it's very stat-heavy and most of the work had already been done, so my question was clearly misplaced. -Pete (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: For complex tables we agree with you, and it is a practice that has been undertaken. Stick in the image, mark it {{table missing}} and problematic, though it is a per work decision. Genealogies (which are a PITA to replicate) are somewhat similar, though we haven't been marking them as missing, just accept the image reproduction, and use good alt= description. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Page break within {{dotted TOC line}} - ?[edit]

Some templates have ".../s" and ".../e" variants that make them work across page breaks. Not so with {{dotted TOC line}}. See the entry on the Book I/Chapter III entry here: The Early Indian Wars of Oregon How should I best deal with this? -Pete (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: There are many pages in the TOC. This template easily gets burdened with template overload because of the dots. Better to shift to {{Dotted TOC page listing}}, which has more options, works across page breaks, and is more resistant to template overload. However, mobile view and epub are not good with dotted TOC templates. Hrishikes (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
With those templates they are managing <table> formatting, whereas the /s and /e templates are managing <div> formatting; so unfortunately not directly comparable; the consequences of html rules. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: For the true believers(!) there was a whole slew of page-crossing-support {{dotted TOC page listing}} variants: see documentation here. 00:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Unable to find the problem with this header template[edit]

Pasted this sample header and I am unable to find the problem. Could someone please look at it? — Ineuw talk 03:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Much thanks. History compare, what a wonderful tool. :-) — Ineuw talk 04:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay head-scratcher as to why two templates behave differently....[edit]

{{cl-act-paragraph|split=none|layout=right|title=Example|text=An extened example paragraph. Blah blah blah blah blah etc...}}

{{cl-act-paragraph/x|split=none|layout=right|title=Example|text=An extened example paragraph. Blah blah blah blah blah etc...}}

Should BOTH generate the SAME output:



The second correctly generates the intended side-title, the direct (first call) doesn't suggesting a logic flaw somewhere.

I'm again a bit frustrated that templates fail to behave consistently despite there being little or NO difference between how they are coded.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Logical flaw as suspected... Repaired manged to confuse the values on an equality test. We really really should have some people that can validate templates logically. :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:cl-act-paragraph and family...[edit]

You make one experimental change and for some reasons it all works beautifully :)

However, it will at some point need someone to put {{sidenotes begin}} and {{sidenotes end}} (or some appropriate alternative) in the header and footer of all pages using it. :(

Can't win e'm all, but it's certainly working a LOT better than some previous approaches..

I'd like some comment on how this now much more powerful template could be improved further.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

We have talked about your (overly?) complex templates with a narrow focus, and you repeatedly bring this set here complaining about them. Nothing has changed. The rest of us simplify our templates, or use them in sets. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you the response, confirming your previous opnions on the subject. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

{{cl-act-title}} which was the cause of most of the problems was converted to be a specific call to {{MarginNote}}, with the complexity inherent in it to do with handling the automatic position switching between PAGE namespace and a transclusion elsewhere. If using {{Outside L }},{{Outside L}}, {{Outside RL}}, in many instance extensive sidenotes overlapped to such an extent as to be unreadable, by comparison those doen with the current experimental version of cl-act-title, seem to adjust! This in effect solved the problem that lead to the original really complicated (and now abandoned approach with cl-act-paragraph.)

If the marginnote template was able to handle lrpage or rlpage values for it's margin parameter (i.e did the automated side switching between Page: and the mainspace transclusion), then in many many instances, cl-act-paragaph, as such could be replaced with direct calls to cl-act-title (given the changes). On an identical note the anchors generated automatically could be done using directly, with the section formatting being manually typed. Given that templates are essentially macro shorthands for repeated formatting calls I'm not sure what advanatges would be gained by coding all the formatting manually. This leaves the remaining functionality being the indentation of paragaphs based on their level. Currently this is done by using a call to {{p}} to set the margins. The variants {{left/s}} and {{left/e}} could be used alternately for this (but I am thinking these are DIV rather than p based). Your feedback is appreciated, and you've given me some things to examine. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, per User:ShakespeareFan00/Sidenotes testing It seems that {{MarginNote}} is lacking an ability to tweak it for the use of margin adjusting templates where it's called from INSIDE them. Back to the drawing board sadly :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Subsequently I've reverted back to the version of {{cl-act-title}} that uses a sidenoted reference, It's STILL wrong,and broken etc, but at least it nominally works consistently.
All of this of course moot, if someone (re)-implemented the sidenote functionality so that the overlaps didn't occur, based on apathy here on Wikisource, I don't see that occurring any time soon.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
A point that I think you might be overlooking is that the original printed pages are a set width and as a result the marginal notes always begin and end at the same points across the page and there is space vertically to have them not overlap. In the online resetting that you are attempting, the page width is variable depending upon the screen size of the reader—anything from a 42″ flat screen TV to a 3″ cell phone. Instead of trying to slavishly reproduce the exact printed page setting, I suggest you focus on how to represent the text with its notes in a usable on-screen way. For many of the Acts of Parliament, a lot of the marginal notes are navigational (this is where subsection iii.a.iv.b starts)—you probably don't need to reproduce these at all. Another large set are mentions of other Acts—do these as in-text wikilinks, not as marginal notes. A third group are essentially references or footnotes—change these to standard Wikisource style footnotes. This should leave you with a lot fewer marginal notes to decide what to do with. Or, to put it in another way, what's the simplest way of making the text of the Acts available and usable to a wide range of readers. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay what we have in the originals are
  • Section headers ( I.E titles that are defacto section summaries this is what most level 1 side titles are, and these are explictly coded for.)
  • Citations (I.E a cross reference to another document or statute in this instance.
  • Explanatory notes.

The main version translates ALL but the titles to level 1 paragraphs into sidenoted references for clarity.

The version in sandbox, uses Margin notes to try and approximate the formatting of the older fixed width versions..

One minor change that would make simplification a lot easier to update {{Short-title/c0}} which was written to use some code in the Module: Short-title which called {{cl-act-title}} directly with a fixed format, that code can probbaly be removed or the usages replaced wth something more conventional. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

A progress update - {{short-title/c0}} replaced with references.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless there's some kind of concrete proposal in a week or so, I'll consider 'phasing out' this template family entirely, as it seems a "massive" breakage or conversion is the only way this issue is going to get the attention it needs. For a template that was on the cusp of being very useful, that would be a shame. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Plenty of people are prepared to say 'too complex' , but it seems bar one approach (whose logic is complex to my understanding) it seems there's an (inadvertent perhaps) apathy to actually provide suggestions on HOW to simplify this template family or actually resolve the issue. So far this template family
  • has been converted down from a DIV based approach to a P based approach because of the parser issues
  • has had sidetitles converted into references because that's apparently "more compatible" with dynamic layouts
  • has had multiple inline sidetitles moved to the top of a section (albiet in a currently cryptic way)
  • has had certain forms for different levels ( i.e paramater sets) coded in to specfic templates as shorthands...


So I will ask a blunt question. What will be acceptable to certain contributors such that this template family is

  • Understandable
  • Maintainable
  • Compatible


Sorry for sounding exasperated, but thats the way I feel right now.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay... time to take a wiki-break, before I go beserk.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Use of text attached to plates[edit]

Esme Shepherd (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC) This query arises probably because I do not know the full technicalities of attaching text to plates. I have copied from example. So, on The Improvisatrice.pdf/4 I have the artist and engraver below the plate using smaller block, float right, etc and this works fine.

The problem is that there is a larger plate on The Improvisatrice.pdf/5 and if I put these pages together in wikisource, the plate texts on page 4 are widened to fit this wider image and go beyond the plate, which is not what is required.

I have therefore been forced to split the opening title pages into two to prevent this happening. I cannot find anything about this in the help pages, so some guidance would be appreciated.

@Esme Shepherd: I have done some little tinkering. Please check the first title page now, whether this is ok. Hrishikes (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Esme Shepherd (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Thank you. That seems to be fine. I have adjusted the links and the second title page is now superfluous.

Page aware floats[edit]

I appreciate that we have had some issues, but I wanted your view on two very quick and probably horrendusly broken Page: aware versions of the float template I created earlier being {{float LR}} and {{float RL}} respectively. If the function can be implemented in the main templates more cleanly it would of course be desirable.

However, given the complexity of coding Page: aware templates , I'm wondering if it's just easier to assume one layout regardless any scans notwithstanding. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

See also my other posting in the main Scriptorum on a related issue. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Why? How about you use one of the two the existing sidenotes systems rather than create a third f***ed system that we will need to repair. We haven't managed to get it right for those two, so why do you think that any of us can build something better on your system? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
What that reads to me is, "because I am unwilling or unable to debug or consider certain esoeteric template interactions that might sometimes happen, I am going to insist that existing templates (which may be broken in other ways) be used, because it's simpler for me to understand only those known issues and interactions ." I'm sorry to be blunt and call you on that, but that's the way it's reading to me. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Which on re-considering is a actually good approach. So a template that even with the best of intentions is never goin to work should be ditched. I'll get started soon. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth - User:ShakespeareFan00/Sidenotes testing contains test cases for various forms of an interaction I was trying to resolve.
Also which ONE of "existing" sidenote systems should be used to the exclusion of others be used then? So that all uses can be conformed and the f***d up (your words) systems can be removed? In the absence of any kind of reasonable response on this, as I've said elsewhere I am inclined to use one form of sidenote (i.e {{Outside L}} or {{Outside R}} universally in any given work) and ignore the paged layout of the scans entirely. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

[Unindnented] All of which is a distraction from the other primary reason these were created, to have a Page aware version of the float templates more generally, which is a SEPERATE concern from the side-titles issue. In any event I've userfied them as they need more extensive testing.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there a lag on the db version used for insource searches?[edit]

I'd been updating the sidenotes to use one nominally consistent layout, but seem to be seeing an older version of the search result which is NOT reflecting what's actually in the pages when I check whats ACTUALLY present in the edit form. Either that or I need my eyes testing as I was sure on some of the pages continuing to show up I had updated them.07:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Partially you are asking the wrong question. Yes there is an effective delay on repeated queries of this nature but the reason has nothing to do with insource searches. Assuming the change you wish to examine was made to an included item (typically a template; but depending upon the search namespace selected could be all of Page: space in the worst case) the update has to propagate via mediawiki's internal job queue and that can be S-L-O-W as it can depend on the edit activity going on anywhere else on the system!
The bad aspect of using insource is the high load it places on mediawiki. Thus it is good practice to perform an initial search only to locate items of interest to any given case and then examine the results ideally using another method. 08:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the technical explanation. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

differences between templates[edit]

What are the specific differences technically and functionally between templates {{block center}} and {{center block}}? Particularly with regard to use with formatting poetry. Layman's terms please :) Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Tricky, custom footnotes[edit]

Looking for creative footnote solutions for a page that uses double daggers and pilcrows instead of sequential footnote numbering. {{ref}}+{{note}} format lets me specify the footnote icon but won't work well when compiled into chapter view. Ideally there would be some sort of template that took {{ref}} as it is but pulled from a list-defined {{reflist}}... Czar (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The house style here is to use incremental numbers instead of those special symbols. There are not two parallel sets of footnotes there, one using numbers and the other symbols; only one symbol-using set is present. So there is no reason to deviate from the house style. Hrishikes (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Czar: Symbols don't work when we transclude pages together and become endnotes for a chapter, they lose their uniqueness. See Help:Footnotes and endnotes. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Hrishikes, thanks—is this stated somewhere, perhaps in the Wikisource:Style guide? Adding clarification to Help:Footnotes and endnotes, which I had read, and would like to link the proper section for more details Czar (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Czar: Please see the last line of the first section of Help:Footnotes and endnotes --- If the work only uses special symbols in one symbol set, the house style is to instead use incremental numbers. -- Hrishikes (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Hrishikes, that was me. I was hoping to link it to the actual style advice. Czar (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Czar: Thanks, but the help page concentrates on one mode only, that of the number format. The symbol method is given in the Ref and Note templates subsection, with the preceding line: The preceding instructions (= number method) are best practice for producing footnotes on Wikisource. However, in some rare cases it may be more appropriate to use one of the following methods instead. You can see an example of symbolical and numerical footnotes at the end of this chapter in a sister site. I did it because there were two sets of footnotes. Hrishikes (talk) 10:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. Just wanted to check. Thanks! Czar (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Help adapting to new file?[edit]

This scan was missing a couple of pages. I found a new version and uploaded it, and I've been trying to move then handful of pages that have already been transcribed to the new pagination scheme...but I'm only making the mess worse. I'm thinking that not only the index, but also each individual page, probably needs to have its cache purged before it will display the proper page image on each page...but even with manual purging, I'm getting inconsistent results. Any suggestions on how to fix it? At worst, maybe an admin could just delete everything so I can start's not like a ton of work has been done. But if there's a way to preserve what work has been done, obviously that would be highly preferred. -Pete (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: The best way would be to download the djvu, add the missing pages, reupload it, and move the downstream pages to new locations. That's the way I do it, instead of uploading a new file in a new location. Hrishikes (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Thank you, that makes sense, and I find guidance on how to do it here: Help:DjVu_files#Inserting_a_new_pages_(e.g._a_placeholder) I have found the DjVuLibre package for Linux, so I think I'm able to add pages as suggested. I will also need to remove pages like this one. I am somewhat daunted by the project, but will see what I can do! -Pete (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Update...I have figured out how to use djvm to delete pages. I practiced on a simpler file -- in this one, every even page was blank (presumably, it was printed single-sided, and scanned as though it was double-sided). As an added bonus, it forced me to finally learn to write a simple shell script (since djvm doesn't natively support deleting more than one page at a time). Thanks for pointing me in this direction, I've learned some useful stuff today. -Pete (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
All set now, and if anybody wants help in a similar situation, feel free to ask...I think I'm reasonably conversant in manipulating DjVu files now. -Pete (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done

Newline between pages[edit]

Can anyone identify why the page Page:EB1911 - Volume 04.djvu/131 is starting a paragraph when transcluded into the main namespace at 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Boetius, Anicius Manlius Severinus? No {{nop}}, no div templates beginning or ending either page. Prosody (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like {{EB1911 fine print/s}} does contain div tags, for what that's worth. -Pete (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Because the starts and ends are in the header and footer respectively, I was under the impression that it would produce a single div tag when transcluded, which seems to be the case. That was in fact what had brought this page to my attention, I made the change from {{EB1911 fine print}} to the /s and /e equivalents since earlier this year {{EB1911 fine print}} was changed to div based. But still there's an extra p tag. Prosody (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. Sorry, that's about all I've's all pretty mysterious to me. -01:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
{{EB1911 fine print/s}} fixed.— Mpaa (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Weird formatting in original[edit]

I do believe this author anticipated Wikisource by more than 100 years, and adopted a formatting style with the specific intent of confounding me personally. Any ideas on how to solve this riddle?

Essays in Historical Criticism/The Legend of Marcus Whitman/Part 1

On pages 9-15 of this work, the author has chosen to quote the narratives of Spalding and Gray in parallel: each narrative runs from one page to the next, with a horizontal rule separating them. On the final few pages, Gray's narrative has run its course, and only Spalding's continues, and then the author's own narrative resumes. (I imagine this was done to highlight similarities and/or contrasting points in each, but I haven't yet read it closely enough to confirm.)

I think perhaps the best thing to do is to simply preserve it as-is, with an additional rule between "includeonly" tags to indicate the separation between the narratives at the page breaks. But, I worry that this will be confusing to a reader looking at the text in a web browser, as pages aren't really perceived the same way on a screen.

The other alternative I see would be to reunite each narrative using section tags...but perhaps that would override an intentional act of putting certain parts of each narrative side-by-side.

Maybe something fancy with columns...? I'm at a loss. -Pete (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I would use sections to present one narrative, then the other. As long as sections are marked on the pages, it will be easy to transclude them separately. It doesn't look as though side-by-side is done very well in the original, as I merely find it confusing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm eventually going to run into the same issue with some volumes of Ruffhead, albiet having to transclude from another Wikisource as well. The split narrative idea works for me. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the tip. I think I got it: Essays in Historical Criticism/The Legend of Marcus Whitman/Part 1
I noticed that when the main text resumes, it refers to "this narrative." Since it immediately follows the Spalding narrative in the original (but the Gray narrative in the transcription), I added a Wikisource user annotation. Any feedback, or changes I should make? (Should I find a way to have the footnotes for the narratives occur within the narrative sections, for instance?) -Pete (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Converting Jp2 files for upload to Commons[edit]

I have recently been converting JP2 files by hand (previously, I relied exclusively on @Hesperian:'s bot to pull them from IA and convert them). My process is workable, but cumbersome, and I'm hoping for tips on how to improve it.

I prefer to work in Linux, though I'm happy to fire up Windows (or possibly even an old Mac) if it's worthwhile for a task like this. Here's what I've found:

  1. I browse through IA and download all relevant JP2s in a work
  2. One by one, I use the command line tool "img2pdf" to convert the JP2's to PDF files
  3. I open the PDFs, and one by one I right-click and save the PNG contained within
  4. I upload the individual files to Commons.

It feels like a pretty inefficient process, but I haven't been able to streamline it better than what I described. Do you have any suggestions? (If memory serves, I believe I've seen @Ineuw: commenting about converting JP2's in the past...pinging in case you have ideas.) -Pete (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Jpeg2ktopam, from NetPBM, can convert them to PNM files, as can opj_decompress from libopenjp2. Convert from imagemagick can turn those files (or least the PNGs they're converted to) into a large PDF file. I'm not sure what you need.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry if my overall goal wasn't clear -- I'm trying to losslessly convert files like those listed here (for instance, this one) into PNG files for upload to Commons.
I haven't heard of PNM files, and from a quick look, I'm not sure whether or how it helps to convert into PNM files. (Perhaps it would help if I could batch convert PNM's into PNG's more easily than batch extracting PNG's from PDF's, though?) -Pete (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I would definitely look at imagemagick. It can do just about any kind of command-line image processing you can imagine wanting to do. Your format conversion task is as simple as "magick image.jp2 image.png". Hesperian 02:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Like you, I also download jp2 from IA in case of images where HD version is preferable. In that case I download the jp2 folder. I open the files with Irfanview and save as jpg or png. If I want good djvu, I convert the jp2 folder to djvu. Hope this helps. Hrishikes (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
As others have stated, the imagemagick software would be the easiest via the command: mogrify -format png *.jp2 However it seems Ubuntu's version of imagemagick isn't compiled with JP2 support. So alternatively you could install libopenjp2-tools and use the following command to convert a whole folder: opj_decompress -ImgDir . -OutFor PNG --Riley AJ (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
If you are Windows,nothing beats Irfanview for batch conversion from one format to another. Also, you can upload images to the Commons in batches of ~50 images at a time if the source is the same. In Linux I haven't done any batch image preparation yet, and my experience with Wine was less than successful. In general they crash. — Ineuw talk 15:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

What a great collection of suggestions -- thank you all. I'll experiment with them this weekend. @Riley AJ: your observation is especially helpful, I was wondering why some of the imagemagick-bsed suggestions I was finding online were not working on my Ubuntu Maté-based system. -Pete (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: @Riley AJ:'s suggestion is exactly what I was after. I'll try out Irfanview later, but for now I'm happy with this. Thanks so much! As a minor followup, I'm curious if anybody understands why IA has two or more directories of JP2 files for each work? I've generally just gone to the biggest one, on the assumption that it's probably the highest-quality collection; but I wonder if I'm missing something. -Pete (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
According to this IA blog post, the file <identifier>_files.xml contains a little bit of information about what each file is within the directory. Including, whether the file comes from the original uploader (marked with source="original") or if it's a processed file (source="derivative"). So for "riverofwestlifea00vict", the original scans (or at least original untouched upload) would be the "riverofwestlifea00vict_orig_jp2.tar" file. Which I assume is why it has "orig" in the file name. At least that's all I could find about it. --Riley AJ (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding a poem[edit]

I have been advised to use Wikimedia to be a reference for a poem about an historic mulberry tree. I am trying to create a page on Wikimedia about the tree:

Wikimedia is daunting. But I am sure the process will be simple. Can someone experienced please assist?

David Wilson

Hello. May I suggest adding the poem here to Wikisource—in a manner similar to this poem—also noting the addition of source information on the corresponding Talk page. Then you can link to the poem here at Wikisource from the Wikipedia article rather than place the poem over there in its entirety. Feel free to wait for other feedback on this; other editors may have different approaches. Londonjackbooks (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Even better, if you are able to do so: you can follow our Beginner's guide to adding texts and make a copy directly from the original newspaper. I have already done the first two steps. The text of the poem is here. You don't have to worry about the other articles on that page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hyphen Problem[edit]

I have a doubt regarding proofreading. Consider the example of the word disambiguation. In the book, it is given as disamb-iguation where the first word before hyphen is in line 3 and the word after hyphen is in line 4. While proofreading, do I need to remove the hyphen symbol? Adithyak1997 (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Hrishikes (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you can remove the hyphen symbol if the separation is between lines in the same page.

If the hyphen is at the end of the page and the rest of the word is on the next page, you'll have to use {{hws}} and {{hwe}}.
  • On the first page, you would write {{hws|disamb|disambiguation}}.
  • On the second page, you would write {{hwe|iguation|disambiguation}}
For more informations, read Help:Formatting conventions. Assassas77 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

An Anglo-Chinese Vocabulary of the Ningpo Dialect (PDF file) is not properly displayed ?[edit]

Hi there,

I was just wondering whether it was my computer or my network : Index:An Anglo-Chinese Vocabulary of the Ningpo Dialect.pdf scans are not displayed on the Page: namespace. I can't even see the preview of the cover on the index page. Is it related to the PDF type of the file and should we upload a DJVU file of this work instead ? Assassas77 (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Not just you. Thumbnails have been failing to generate for me also, for a few days now. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@Assassas77, @Beleg Tâl: Please report your issues at phab:T196961 -- Hrishikes (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@Assassas77: File corrected, please check. Hrishikes (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It works for me but the pictures seems a bit rough (Page 12) compared to the file on the Internet Archive [4] I tried using the ia-upload tool to re-upload it but the script says « Upload failed ». Assassas77 (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@Assassas77:, yes, the IA file has very high resolution (and compression), that is the problem. I reduced both, that's why the file is visible on display now. You have to decide between the two evils: low-resolution display or no display at all. If you want the IA version of the file, just revert my upload. Hrishikes (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: I reuploaded the DJVU file directly from IA using ia-upload. The new index is here : Index:An Anglo-Chinese vocabulary of the Ningpo dialect.djvu. I'll ask an administrator to do the transfer (diff). Assassas77 (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Aligned table - nofooter param on it's own is useless...[edit]

See: User:ShakespeareFan00/Aligned table test, where I was testing this in anticipation of using it more widely..

By comparison some minimal examples:-




The resultant output being (from Special:Expand Templates) .

<div class="mw-parser-output"><table>



I fail to see why these minimal examples would work ( the issue of suprious row generation aside), when the use of a table end syntax with the aligned table template (and a nofooter=yes) doesn't. Given this I also opened task T197712. When I follow the nominal documentation there's a reasonable expectation that things will behave in a consistent manner. The fact that simple things like this don't always seem to behave as the documentation would suggested is an increasing frustration, especially given the lack of time, expertise or patience amongst Wikisource contributors to continually work around Mediawiki limitations. Sometimes there are things that needed to be fixed at a deeper level. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you need to make peace with parser and templates and leave them alone ...— Mpaa (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
To me your response is understandable but it would be nice sometimes to see progress on some long-standing issues being fixed, some of the ones I encounter have been there for over a decade :( 22:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: If in doubt, try not to mix your syntax styles. Mediawiki is not (despite propaganda implying otherwise) a comprehensive analyser of its "language." When there is no introducing {| present the parser never even recognises any of the other "table" constructs |, |+, |-, or |} and they are passed through unchanged with results as you have already experienced.
As for mixing styles? Try this substitution in your Aligned table test trial and I think you will find it works as expected:
1 {{aligned table|cols=3|style=border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%;
2 |row1header=yes
3 |nofooter=yes
4 |Session and Chapter.
5 |Title.
6 |Short Title.}}
7 {{aligned table|noheader=yes|nobody=yes}}
In other words: if you choose to use a LUA-based script to build a portion of the table, then it is just common sense (if you trust the programmer!) to use the same code to complete the structure… 11:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you.. , Having an {{aligned table/suspend}} {{aligned table/resume}} and {{aligned table/ribbon}} (or failing that a rowXribbon=yes option in the module.) would also be helpful. The purose of the first two should be obvious from the names. The last one was intended to add content that would only be applicable in Page namespace (such as column headers) , in effect a wrapper so as to avoid an ugly construction of <noinclude>... content ...</noinclude> logic.. Is there an issue tracker for suggested template improvements?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
{{aligned table/suspend}} ≡ {{aligned table|nofooter=yes}}; {{aligned table/resume}} ≡ {{aligned table|noheader=yes}}: inelegant but functional. {{aligned table}} does not have any kind of support for the "ribbon" concept (presumably you are referring to {{TOCstyle}}, or has the topic wandered off-track? 05:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I might ask about 'ribbon' support on the template's talk page, see Page:Short Titles Act 1896(ukpga 18960014 en).pdf/2 for an example of where an aligned table needs a 'ribbon' row option, The current approach works, but isn't as clean as it could be.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Note to the IP contributor, Can you also leave your related comments in the phab ticket, which I am about to close? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I was too slow. It appears you've closed the ticket already. I'm not too clear what you wanted to add in any case? 05:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Only to note the workaround. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
A different issue here - Page:DfT-circular-01-2016.pdf/81, The header can't use aligned table as it's got a rowspan, on Page:DfT-circular-01-2016.pdf/80 where the header/footer handling doesn't affect the flow the two style can be mixed. Here it generated stripped tag errors.

If aligned table is incompatible with multipaging in this way it's documentation ought to say so. And once again I've encountered a limitation that nobody seems to have the patience or expertise to implement a long term repair for, as opposed to "clever-quick fixes." :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay time to take some deep breaths and re-code.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
During one of those deep breaths please recall the ancestry of {{aligned table}} was that it was copied from a version developed in the wikipedia environment with but minimal modification to handle a limited form of multipaging. The wikipedia version has evolved in another direction in the nearly three years since the split and may have improvements (but most likely is not remotely usable in the wikisource environment.) In other words {{aligned table}} is not a brilliant choice for use here if anything else locally supported can do a given job.

None of this stuff is "official" mediawiki software so raising a phabricator ticket will gain exactly no sympathy and will be a pretty much wasted effort only costing the requester reputation without reward. 07:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

In other words the "the template/module is not (yet) compatible with the Proofread page environment". The next question I was going to ask would be if it was possible to have some kind of 'localised' issue tracker? I was going to put a note on the talk page for the Module concerning the headers issue. 08:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitary break and rant about lack of flexibility in certain markup and non-Page: awareness of some templates.[edit]

Currently {{aligned table}} isn't widely used but on a number of these, changing already validated pages back to having "one-style" would incur a performance hit (as the use of multiple calls to {{ts}} obviously has more overhead than a single call to {{aligned table}}, perhaps you'd be able to review and come up with solutions to specific instances?.
Some of the table with mixed-styles are because of colspans or rowspans in the header rows, something which is a known (and now documented) limitation with {{aligned table.}}. This is not easily solvable (given that the current mixed style approach isn't advised as you explained earlier) other than manually placing hundereds of calls directly into the table, which as I've said would have a notable performance hit. {{ts}} as currently coded is literately a call to massive SWITCH statement, which for several hundred calls will eventually hit parser limits.
Other uses of {{aligned table}} are to generate ToC or INDEX pages, Whilst some of this could reasonably be re-coded to use TOCstyle, or lists, both of those have their own alternative limitations. In respect of It wasn't for example possible to use wiki-syntax for lists directly on this Page:Report of a Tour Through the Bengal Provinces of Patna, Gaya, Mongir and Bhagalpur; The Santal Parganas, Manbhum, Singhbhum and Birbhum; Bankura, Raniganj, Bardwan and Hughli in 1872-73.djvu/4 as there was no (apparent) means in direct wiki-syntax to change the style of list index shown. Here it was fortunate that only a single page had to be re-coded as {{ordered list}} is another template that as far I as I know doesn't (yet) have "paged" variants to generate appropriately different numbering via a start=<number> value to the opening <OL> tag in Page: namespace.
Good, {{ordered list}} DOES have support for differing start values, not necessarily for the split-list items mentioned below though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
(Aside) I've also sometimes run into instance where a table element, is directly split over a "page-break", these are not straightforward to code for and usally need the relevant portions of the text to be relocated which complicates proofreading.
(Aside) I've also come across 'list' elements that span over page-breaks, something which current wiki-syntax for lists can't easily cope with, whilst it is possible to code for this using HTML5 directly inline, This is at best a 'clever-fix' to workaround a limitation which should be fixed in Mediawiki itself.
Whilst it's helpful to know that there are limitations, It would be nice if sometimes there were efforts made to find long-term stable solutions, rather than having to figure out 'clever-fix' ones that rely on playing 'hunt the behaviour' when other things change (such as the parser migration).

It's disappointing that I get the impression of an apathy to resolve many many of these concerns and limitations. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Formatting lists on Page:LostApocryphaOfTheOldTestamentMRJames.djvu/17[edit]

Here a template is used to create a list, with a concern , the list style type given doesn't actually exist as CSS style type! meaning that whilst the intent is good, the formatting intended doesn't actually appear to be generated. A suggestion on how to possibly do this in a way that is "compatible" long term would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

DocBook XML[edit]

Are there any tools/scripts for converting a book in DocBook XML format for upload on Wikisource? Czar (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: Pandoc can convert from Docbook to wikitext. It wouldn't upload, you'd have to do that manually. Sam Wilson 00:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Pandoc left lots of artifacts but I suppose it did the job. I cleaned it up and uploaded this major reference work. Open to ideas on how best to format, given that the XML didn't include direction on layout. I opened a thread at Talk: Literary Research Guide. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 17:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Lines under/next to images[edit]

Hi, after uploading some images to wikicommons and adding them here, I'm getting lines under the images and sometimes next to them also. For example see here Page:The Swedenborg Library Vol 1.djvu/23 Anyone know whats going on? Jpez (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm pretty sure I've seen this happen before, but I can't remember any details about it. It seems the partial border is produced as part of the thumbnail image when it is resized. I found that if I set the width of the upper image greater than 450px the lines disappeared. Then I tried downloading the image, resaving it, and reuploading, and now the lines on that image seem to be gone. Being very ignorant about these matters myself, all I can suggest is fiddling around until you get results that you can be satisfied with. — Mudbringer (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mudbringer: thanks for taking the time to look into it. I also noticed if the image is larger the lines dissapear, its a weird problem. I might have to create a phabricator ticket so someone in the know-how can have a look. Jpez (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
It is not a Proofread Page problem as it happens at special:permalink/7529188. I would suggest that it is a question to pose to the WMF community at Commons, and apparently it is something with the thumbnail rendered. If that fails then it seems like a phabricator request would progress matters. It may be worthwhile looking at your image software and the export/production values, as it may have an element of responsibility, such has been known to happen. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Yeah I suspect it has something to do with the image editing software I'm using as I didn't have this problem before. I will also ask at commons as you suggested. I didn't think of doing that. Thanks! Jpez (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

User:ShakespeareFan00/Cap142 , Templates should not become broken because they were moved.[edit]

I'm sorry for the seeming rant, but the above should have not be having issues. There should be a set or margin notes down the right hand side, and no gradually creeping right hand side margin. Earlier this morning I had checked this example and it was working.

User:JustinCB had re-written {{cl-act-p}} (in a series of sub-templates and a module) so that it actually worked, but for some (as yet yet unclear) reason the move of that template set from their User space back to Template namespace has (based on the extended test example linked) caused it that example to once again display 'issues' that had previously been successfully (and thought) resolved. I fail to see why a set of templates (and a module) that were at one point working prior to the relevant templates being moved/renamed, should cease to be working after that rename, unless the backend and parser are being exceptionally pedantic.

A lot of effort was clearly put into getting this working. so it would be appreciated if certain contributors on this project, rather than laying blame at 'over-complication' were willing to actually provide technical feedback on what may have gone wrong. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

And now it's working again so something must changed in the meantime, an answer my request for information about what may have gone wrong would still be useful though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: It wasn't the rename that did it, it was the fact that I changed the template around the same time. {{cl-act-finish}} was one I was on the fence about re-writing in lua before, but I just re-wrote it. This has nothing to do with pedantry, & everything to do with the fact that mediawiki templates with too many conditions are hard to work with. JustinCB (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks , ;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
And I need to seriously take some clam down time more often. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Always take calm down time. It is just a wiki, there are no sheep stations on the line. These are books with some age and will still be there. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Has Proofread page styling changed?[edit]

Look at Index:Coloured Figures of English Fungi or Mushrooms.djvu?

I'm seeing blanks for pages that have a known status! ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

We've been having lots of these kinds of glitches lately with page status. Some of them seem to be connected with the Visual editor. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't use Visual Editor at all. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I merely noted that some of the issues seem to be connected with visual editing. I'm seeing the same "blank" status at Index:Pindar and Anacreon.djvu, and I don't use visual editing either. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
It looks as though a "hard purge" of each affected page in a work corrects the issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
In Mediawiki sense, the pages only need to be touched, rather than purged. This can be resolved by use of mw:Manual:Pywikibot/ We can script this pretty well on a "by work" basis. I am comfortable with ppl building a list by "Index:" page and I can get those done once a day. If we think that we have a massive problem, then we can look to work through all Page: ns pages, which takes at least a week. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I wouldn't say that it is or isn't related to visual editor. If we are seeing this to be a broad issue, we should be adding a phabricator ticket as it is probably more related to underlying editing aspects in Page: ns as they clean up inconsistencies from different generations of edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: You forgot to switch to "bot" setting. The recent edits are flooded with the touch edits. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Damn, forgot that the bot itself wasn't enough. I may try to purge them rather than touch them. That shouldn't generate an edit, and should fix the issue. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: A Phabricator ticket may be necessary, as the same symptoms—with the same remedy at present—are appearing on bnwikisource. Mahir256 (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Do you have a bn: Index page to test? Thing about bnWS as it is a smaller wiki, it is quite easy to purge the Page: ns without taking too long. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Hrishikes brought it up when looking at this Index page. Mahir256 (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
From testing at bnWS, it would appear that it needs to be a touch rather than a purge. [Here the touch may be making an edit, sample size is too small to know whether this will be every situation. The generational versions of Page editing will not make it a universal known]. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I misspoke. The result can be achieved by a purge of the Page: ns, then a null edit of the Index: ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Inconsistent results that way. Seems best to touch/edit each Page: ns page. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
There is some explanation by Tpt in phab:T198470. Ankry (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I know that there was a change within a surfeit of closing divs Page: ns pages, a week or so ago, and I am going to hazard a guess that this is involved. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
    Seems that it relates to the page itself, not the time last edited. I can see pages edited at about the same time in 2017 and they have different appearances in the Index: page — billinghurst sDrewth 05:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
From reading the phabricator ticket it seems the Proofread-page quality level was moved to being a page property, and that many pages need updating to ensure that the database on the back end gets updated :(. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst, @EncycloPetey, @Hrishikes, @ShakespeareFan00: regardless of the backward compatibility fix implemented by Tpt (see phab ticket), it would be worth to update the pages to new structure at some time, IMO. While the Not proofread and Proofread pages structure will be updated at their next edit (we hope their status to be updated some day), this is unlikely for Validated and Without text pages. So, maybe, you would consider a non-urgent bot job to null-edit them? I don't think this will ever be done automatically by software. Ankry (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: , if I recall correctl,y I had suggested long ago on Phabricator, that the page quality stuff should be in the database so it was easier to track when things got validated, or there could be some kind of "Page quality" log. I would not be unreasonable in thinking that moving the page quality stuff into a property is part of this? Is the long term plan to remove the page quality markup form 'content' entirely, so that the only thing that is in the header/footer is actuall header/footer content vs metadata? On a related note, are changes to page properties logged or recorded for each instance of change (i.e a transactional log of the changes)? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: These are questions to Tpt, the Proofreadpage maintainer. It seems to me that the proofread status is (for newly created/updated pages) stored in database. But it seems to me that with no history of changes and together with (not instead of) the info in the page itself (I think the internal header is left for compatibility reasons). But I am not en expert here. Ankry (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
And storing the proofresd ststus info in database for all pages in requires over a milion edits ( Ankry (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: I don't disagree with the need for a bot run, I was waiting for the certainty of the resolution prior to doing so, and then the clarity of what we were going to do. PLUS I believe that the solution should be wikisource-universal, rather than single wiki specific. I agree that to your suggestion to look to parse the without text (134k+) and validated (362k+) pages, as long as we accept that we are going to force an edit.

The WS bot operators will need to operate that service for all WS communities, and that will require bot status. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we should run the bot on all pages.— Mpaa (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I have started running Wikisource-bot on ps:0 and ps:4 pages for enWS. I am using the phabricator ticket to note task and progress. Also noting that the fix didn't roll last week due to Jul 4 holiday stopping a version roll-out. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I definitely agree that the page quality is metadata and not data, and, so, should not be part of the page content. The page property table aims at storing metadata derived from the page content (e.g. "hiddencat" or "defaultsort"...) and, so, there is log of the changes in this property. The way MediaWiki provides to attach metadata to each revision is the revision tags system. What proofreadPage was doing is using the quality categories to track the quality of the latest revision of the page. I changed it by using a page property to store the quality of the current revision because it has multiples advantages, like allowing to rename quality categories without breaking a wiki and beeing able do not rely on the local wiki configuration to do page quality lookups. The problem we are currently experiencing happened because I switched part of ProofreadPage code to use this page property even if all pages are not migrated yet (I wrongly assumed they where all migrated). What I believe is the correct thing to do in the future is indeed to switch to a revision tag for the future revisions and keep, at least for now, the page quality in the wikitext for the old revision. If someone is fluent in PHP and want to implement it, I would be happy do the required code review and merge it. Tpt (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Copying commons.js page & templates over to ptWS[edit]

Would copying my common.js page over to the Portuguese Wikisource work the same as here?

Also, I have begun transcription of a work over at ptWS, and I would like to copy the {{block center}} & corresponding /s/e templates over to there as well. I did so at Wikibooks some years ago with block center, but forgot how (and how to transfer the template's history over as well), and there is also the added issue of perhaps titling the templates in Portuguese? The project is not very active, and I tried on one occasion to reach out at a User talk page, but no response thus far. Any help/suggestions welcome! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: {{Bloco centro}} ? -- Ankry (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: Translates well in my Portuguese/English translator :) but I am only now beginning to learn Portuguese, so I'm not sure. Are you familiar with the language? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: No. Just looked at the use examples. Ankry (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: Aahhh... It exists! Thanks for finding it. But I don't see any /s & /e that will span several pages, which is what I would require. Can our {{Block center/s}} /e templates be copied to {{Bloco centro/s}} /e over there somehow and still give credit via history? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: I do not think they have something like this. {{Bloco centro}} is <div> block based while {{block center}} is table based (different HTML structure is used). So if splitting the Portugease template, I would suggest to use a compatible definition. See my examples: [5] [6] and feel free to use it. However, as I never edited at, I do not know their policies and as being pt-0 I am unable to provide any documentation here. Ankry (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: Thank you. I will take a look in a few hours, as I am about to call it a day. I will try to identify someone who has worked with templates over there who may speak English to address issues. I appreciate your looking into this :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you want to use the same scripts at ptWS as you use at enWS, then you either need to copy them over; OR set them up in way to call them as .js OR copy from your common.js to meta global settings ... m:special:mypage/global.js (see m:Global user pages). I have mine set up over there though split scripts between my local common and my global pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
    re importing, that needs to be done by an admin at the target wiki, and they do not have it set up to receive from enWS.
    re matching templates, the interwiki links through should work be in place if they have such templates. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Billinghurst:. I have reached out again at an admin's Talk page over there. It is not an active place. I will try to be patient :) I set up my meta global .js page, and it works over at ptWS now. Just have to tweak my enWS .js page so my customized editing toolbar does not show up twice here. Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Upload request (if possible)[edit]

Is anyone able to download this book [7]. I'm not able to and I'm thinking it might be because of my location. I found a copy on hathitrust but I just noticed that the title page is missing and two pages of text are also missing. I'm hoping this would have them. If it's possible for someone to download it could you please upload it over this at commons c:File:Swedenborgs Maximus Homo.pdf Jpez (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Can someone help me with the tables on these two pages?[edit]

I don't know how to handle the code for the tables on the pages here and here. Abyssal (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Abyssal: There are several ways to do it, I gave one possible example here. Hope this helps! -Pete (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, @Peteforsyth:. But what if there are multiple columns like on this page? Abyssal (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Abyssal: Ah, in that case my first suggestion is probably not the best. There is a whole collection of templates designed to deal with formatted tables, which is probably the most "correct" approach, but to be honest I am not very familiar with it. I used it at the suggestion of others in this article, but I was mostly just copying and pasting code and modifying it to work, so I don't have the best overall understanding; but maybe looking through some of those pages will help point you in the right direction. If I find some time to fool around with it in the next few days, I'll try to come up with some more specific advice (if somebody more knowledgeable than myself doesn't get to it first). -Pete (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Abyssal: If I was formatting the words, I would be doing them as simple tables and ignored the dot leading aspects. You can always use {{ts|ar}} to right align a cell, or you can utilise &ensp; to push the width of a digit (as digits are uniform in width). Example of some of that at The Empire and the century/The Indian Army (and an example of where it was too hard to reproduce so I cheated).— billinghurst sDrewth 03:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Abyssal: Please check this and this page, is it ok now? Hrishikes (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Hrishikes:Looks fantastic, thank you! Abyssal (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Proofread extension won't display images from source PDFs[edit]

When I try to proofread a page like this one, the proofread extension doesn't display an image of the page to the right. Does anyone know how I can fix this? Obviously this makes it next to impossible to get any actual proofreading done. Abyssal (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Abyssal: -- Yes check.svg Done -- Hrishikes (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Thanks! Any idea what was wrong? Abyssal (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The file was super-compressed. Hrishikes (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Hrishikes:I'm not sure I understand... Abyssal (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Abyssal: For some reason, the mediawiki software is unable to render compressed pdf files. Bug filed: phab:T196961. Your file was originally 793 KB, I decompressed it to 7.22 MB, now it displays. Hrishikes (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Hrishikes:How do you decompress a PDF? Abyssal (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I convert the file to a set of images. Then I rebuild the pdf without giving any compression option. I choose the 300 dpi resolution normally. Hrishikes (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Thanks. Abyssal (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
In short Abyssal if you are bring the file from elsewhere, upload it, and if it fails to display (and if you are not overly technical), just ask and there are some talented technical people who will help. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 22:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. A praise from Billinghurst counts as a reward. I'll take it as such. :-) Hrishikes (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hah! Take a full shimmy Hrishikes smileybillinghurst sDrewth 10:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: Can you do this tiny two page PDF? Abyssal (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Abyssal: Yes check.svg Done -- Hrishikes (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding link of a Wikisource article to a Wikipedia article[edit]

Hello I've recently created Remarks by President Trump and President Putin of the Russian Federation in Joint Press Conference. It is a transcript of the joint press-conference held during the Helsinki summit between President Trump and President Putin.

I think it would benefit the readers if a link to it is added in the Wikipedia article w:2018 Russia–United States summit. The press conference took place at this event. I'm however blocked from editing on Wikipedia. EncycloPetey has told me it wouldn't matter if anyone added it after I questioned him on it. I was told by Billinghurst to move the discussion here.

Can anyone therefore please add a a link of the Wikisource article I created on w:2018 Russia–United States summit? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done in this diff. -Pete (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, it wasn't me, but @Clpo13:. I was looking into it and saw that it was done, just wanted to record it here. :) -Pete (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh sorry, didn’t realise that. I was in a hurry. Thank you Clpo13 for helping. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Asking copyright holder permission through email[edit]

I want to add the 2017 Hamas Charter to Wikisource as I think it will be informative and beneficial for the readers. The charter isn't available without a copyright. So can I copy and paste it here after seeking the permission from the Hamas group on its website? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Best to use WS:OTRS -- that is, follow the instructions there to have the rights holder email their release. -Pete (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Hamas has given me permission. But I can't figure out what to do next nor I understand OTRS instructions. Any guidance will be appreciated. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@MonsterHunter32: My apologies, I gave you the wrong link. This one describes the process: commons:Commons:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? Briefly, you need somebody with the authority to approve a license to email the OTRS team, explicitly granting that permission. Let me know if you still have questions. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: But I am copying the text to Wikisource. Commons allows only PDF or djvu of texts and it says you need to upload while permission is being granted. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
@MonsterHunter32: From the page you linked, here is a PDF version of the document. Best process:
  1. Send permission to the OTRS team (with link to PDF)
  2. OTRS team uploads that document to Commons
  3. Create an index page for the PDF here on WS
  4. Transcribe.
An alternative is to upload the file first and add a template to the file while seeking OTRS approval.
Where possible, it's always better to use Scan-backed texts here on Wikisource. If there was no PDF available, you could create one from the web page; and even if not using a PDF or other scan, OTRS would still be the correct process, as an OTRS agent's endorsement is the thing that would give the Wikimedia community confidence that the transcription is approved. -Pete (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Sphere and Duties of Government redirect[edit]

Hi, on Page:Sphere and Duties of Government.djvu/26 I’ve encountered a redirect warning done by User:GeorgeOrwellIII who seems to have taken a very long Wikibreak. Shall I carry on regardless? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

That was a page move due to file update. No hindrance to proofreading current page. Hrishikes (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Tally ho! Zoeannl (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

OCR text layer is off for ~second half of book[edit]

Does somebody know a good way to realign the OCR text layer in this book? It's offset by one page, starting at p. 387. -Pete (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak to realignment, so I'll leave that to someone else, but you may get an even better text layer (for this particular work anyway) by enabling the OCR button in your Preferences [gadgets] and utilizing the button before proofreading each page. It appears all pages are accounted for despite the offset, and although it would be ideal to have pages match up (less confusing for future editors), it is one option. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I do have that option, but I find that in most cases, the text layer is superior to the OCR here...and regardless, it's nice to have both options, as in some works the quality varies from one page to another. This book's OCR seems to be reasonably good. So I'd like to fix and re-upload the PDF, but I don't know the best way to do it. I have PDF-shuffler installed, and it offers similar features...but I don't think this is one. Hopefully somebody knows PDF manipulation better than I do... -Pete (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@Mpaa: do you have any ideas? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, not for PDFs. I could help with djvu only.— Mpaa (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: See Google OCR result on Page:History of Oregon volume 2.djvu/615. You can install it for your account. Hrishikes (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: The results look good, thank you -- but what is it that I can install, and how can I do it? -Pete (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: You can copy the Google OCR facility from my common.js to yours. Hrishikes (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I got it now @Hrishikes:, thank you! This is now a better OCR algorithm than is built into Wikisource? It seems better! much appreciated.
@Peteforsyth: Google OCR gives better output than the default Tesseract OCR here. In Bengali Wikisource, where I also work, Tesseract OCR has been deactivated in favour of Google OCR. Consensus in the community is required for including it in Mediawiki:common.js. So I have included it in my own common.js, because I require it frequently. Hrishikes (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Mpaa: It is in fact a DjVu, not a PDF...I was mistaken in my comment above. -Pete (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: It is fixed now (Note: this was an error in the original files at IA nothing to do with IAupload tool).— Mpaa (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Much appreciated @Mpaa:! Looks great. -Pete (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment

  • Clearly I have my head in the sand at times doing other stuff—not enough hours/days/…—I am just wondering if we have a better tool, and it is set up to be utilised that someone hasn't set it up, or hasn't asked to set it up.
  • I have set up the GoogleOCR as a gadget in the development section. We need to do some more text around that, and work out if we wish to retire the older version.

billinghurst sDrewth 23:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Billinghurst:, I have some followup but I think a new section at WS:S might be better. (?) -Pete (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Resolution and text layer in new DjVu file[edit]

I'm trying to build my competence with DjVu files. I successfully generated this file from a collection of GIFs using the process outlined here. However, there seem to be two problems with the output:

  • The resolution is lower than in the original GIF files
  • There is no text layer in the resulting DjVu file.

Can anybody shed light on these? (I downloaded the GIFs individually from here.) Mostly, I am interested in learning to do this stuff myself. IN this specific case, it's a problem because OCR on Wikisource (whether default or Google-based) seems to fail to recognize the column break, and comes up with bad OCR anyway (surely due in part to the low resolution). Pinging @Mpaa: and @Inductiveload: who I know are handy with DjVus. -Pete (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you get your script to do an OCR of the files to create a text layer? Help:DjVu_filesbillinghurst sDrewth 01:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
In the early years, we had regular problems with some of the scans not successfully identifying columns, though that has improved over the years from IA. Now I am unsure whether that is better scans, better OCR, or probably a combination of both. The web shows me questions for Tesseract and columns, eg. [8], so depending on what you are doing underneath the hood, is probably where you need to focus the questions. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: -- Yes check.svg Done -- Please check. Hrishikes (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both. @Billinghurst: I'm not sure which of the several text layer creation methods listed at Help:DjVu files you're recommending? Internet Archive upload, Tesseract, AnyDjVu? Looks like some would be more time consuming to try than others -- do you have a suggestion? I'm inclined to think that the low resolution of the file is a significant contributing factor, and I'm not sure which of these steps reduced the resolution:
convert input.gif output1.pbm
cjb2 -clean output1.pbm output2.djvu
...or how to tweak it once I've narrowed it down.
@Hrishikes: Thanks! I've proofread one of the pages, and it looks good. What did you do? I see that you did not convert the first page, and I am now unsure whether I tried OCRing anything but the first I guess it's possible it's only that page that is problematic. -Pete (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Added the first page ocr. In my experience, presence or absence of ocr layer is immaterial. My quick addition of ocr-text must have proven it to you. There are many ways to fetch the ocr, if one is absent initially. In this case, both Tesseract and Google failed in column recognition. So I used ABBYY FineReader, the tool used by Internet Archive. Hrishikes (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I've been thinking about uploading other articles from this issue. Maybe it would be best for me to upload them to IA first so they can go through ABBYY, rather than asking you to help every time :) Hopefully I can figure out how to get higher-resolution pages into the DjVu's prior to upload, though. -Pete (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry billinghurst, to answer your question directly -- no, I did not take any step where I was explicitly trying to generate a text layer. I just ran the two commands above, and then the djvm -i command to combine the pages into a single DjVu file. The original web site seems to have a text layer, but the files I download from there are GIFs. I'm not sure whether it's reasonable to expect their text layer to come through the GIFs and get into the DjVu, but I guess that's what I was hoping for. -Pete (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
GIFs, PNGs and JPEGs don't have a text layer, and even if textual comments are included, they can't be stored in the PBM intermediate files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
To my understanding you need to be explicit and tell it to save with text layers, even if they were from another source, they need to be told to be present in the output file. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Update: I've narrowed the quality loss down to the "convert" step, which converts a PNG to a PBM. And (at least in some cases) it's bid depth that is lost, not resolution. "Convert" is part of ImageMagick. I feel like I'm close to chasing down the answer, but I'll have to come back to it on another day. Thanks everybody for the clarification and info on all the other pieces of my question. -Pete (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

PBM files are black and white. If you want greyscale, use PGM. If you want full-color use PPM or PNM.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Aah, thank you @Prosfilaes:...thumping my forehead for not looking into the purpose of the file format. Many thanks! -Pete (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Jewish nation-state law[edit]

I've created Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, if someone could add a link to it on the Wikipedia article. I think it would be beneficial as readers will easily get to know what the bill contains. I am blocked there so I would be highly thankful if someone else added it. The Wikipedia article is w:Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Would you please remove the excess wikilinks. This is not Wikipedia, and the guidance that you are looking for is Wikisource:Wikilinks. Also see Wikisource:For Wikipediansbillinghurst sDrewth 10:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, but how many is excessive? I'll remove some, if more need to be removed let me know. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I've removed much of the links, if you still need more removed let me know. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I've removed many links from other pages I created as well. Anyway if you or someone else has the time add the link of the Basic law page I created on its Wikipedia article. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@MonsterHunter32: the wikilinks are also subject to our annotation guidelines. I have taken the liberty of removing all the links to Wikipedia. In general, wikilinks to Wikipedia are considered annotations unless the original document also contains a link to Wikipedia, which this one doesn't. I've also migrated the document to be proofread against the original PDF version. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Sorry I'm not experienced at this. I created two more articles and they all have wikilinks. Should I remove links from them too? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I've removed many links on other two pages. If more is needed still let me know. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Also thanks for your help. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Archived version[edit]

An ISraeli government bill, which doesn't require permission to copy, has been removed from the government website of Knesset. But it has been archived on the Wayback machine. Is it allowed to copy the Wayback machine version of an official government text? Thanks. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Since you don't supply a link, it's a little difficult to evaluate your question. But if proceeding, I'd suggest making reference to the appropriate part of commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Israel, which will describe exactly which parts of the law define what works as being copyright free. I looked here on Wikisource and found Basic Law of Israel, which has a copyright banner at the top -- so, since I"m not personally familiar with Israeli law, I'm not sure if it's entirely clear-cut. Hopefully this helps point you in a useful direction, good luck. -Pete (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
That was not what I meant. What I meant was whether there will be any problem in using a version of the government publication on Wayback machine. However Internet Archive states that it doesn't restrict the use of its digital materials and the copyright is retained by the owners, in this case Israeli government. ( Official publications of departments of the Israeli government are exempt under copyright law. Thanks anyway. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The Internet Archive has different (more liberal) standards for what they publish than Wikimedia. I don't know Israeli law, so the main thing would be to establish that Israelis law is in the public domain in the United States (where the Wikimedia Foundation is located). If you can find a good source where that is asserted, that will help a great deal. Once that is established, yes, you should be able to import files from the Internet Archive (or files archived by their Wayback Machine) and transcribe them here on Wikisource. -Pete (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

{{iwpages}} skipping some pages[edit]

Does anyone know why some pages are failing to transclude from frwikisource at Flower-de-Luce (Collection)/Noël ? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: I guess: the fromsection and tosection parameters are not (no longer?) optional for some reason (at least the fromsection is not). I am unsure if it is expected behaviour or a side effect of some changes. If you add sections in initial pages (in pointed at each template and the starting sections in the template itself, it should work. Ankry (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Is it due to empty (from|to)section tags, or non-present. Might be worth sandboxing #if: tested to see if that ameliorates the issue. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The script uses the syntax <pages [...] tosection='' fromsection='' /> when these values are missing from the template; perhaps the behaviour of including these attributes but leaving them blank has changed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Yes, putting them inside quotes is an issue, though that can be different from leaving them blank and has been that way for a while, which was why I was suggesting the sandboxing to see we can identify the differences and whether we need to make them conditional

 equates to 
<pages index="filename.djvu" from= to= fromsection="" tosection=""/>
 possibly different from
<pages index="filename.djvu" from= to= fromsection= tosection=/>

something like (in the example presuming that fromsection equates to $3, and tosection to $4)


and that would be the simplest case, and I think that it is going to be more complex as we will need to cover 4 permutations (NN, YY, YN, NY) — billinghurst sDrewth 02:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Missing "tosection" is not a problem, as the whole page is transcluded then. So only 2 cases. Ankry (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

A broken page perhaps?[edit]

Can someone please look at THIS PAGE. In my view it looks that something is broken in the page and the images are not displayed. I am using the same template with the same layout for the 100+ images in the volume without any problems. Also purged the page with all the available purge and refresh tools but it doesn't help. The image source is STORED IN THIS COMMONS CATEGORY. — Ineuw talk 07:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Got it, with a copy-paste... Just some spaces around the hyphens :) -Pete (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Thanks!!!

TOCstyle work in progress[edit]

Could I have suggestions for improvements to the TOC here, please? I’m failing most on the descriptions across pages. Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say I've had a similar problem. I asked before, and I think the general answer is that certain templates use the "div" HTML element, and those ones don't do so well with page breaks. But how to handle in specific instances like this, I'm still unsure. The work I've had the most trouble with is The Early Indian Wars of Oregon. Wish I could offer more help. -Pete (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Help with redaction, page numbers[edit]

Hi, I'm working on transcribing Index:TEMPEST A Signal Problem.djvu, but some portions of the document are redacted, using white rectangles. What is the best way to represent this in the transcription? Also, the document itself is 5 pages, but it appears to be part of a larger (presumably classified and unreleased) document, with different page numbers. Which ones do I use for the pagelist? Sunmist (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

We have templates {{redact}} and {{redact2}}. Though, actually, this page has only half a caption that's not redacted -- is there is later version of this text that was declassified? Mukkakukaku (talk)
To clarify, I've used {{redact}} on other partially redacted documents obtained via FOIA requests. Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Animal rights abuses information on Wikisource[edit]

I searched for articles related to abuses of elephants. I did find and read "Under the sun" by Phil Robinson. This is the question I am asking: When locations in the world are well known for their use of elephants, incorporating them in festivals and in tourism, can a page and links be added to Wikisource that offers information about the abuses of elephants? unsigned comment by Glca (talk) .

@Glca: There's no reason why in principle Wikisource couldn't have a repository of source material about this but it would be pretty unlikely. The way that we structure our portals tries to mirror libraries and uses a Dewey Decimal system of classification. (e.g. Portal:Socrates is under a hierarchy for Portal:Sciences of History). You'd have to drill down pretty far from Portal:Portals to find abuse of elephants in particular but it's not entirely impossible. Do you know of many original sources on this topic? —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
A subject matter page belongs in our Portal: namespace. That said it would generally only show our published work, though it may also link to other freely licensed published works. If you are looking for a modern bibliographic page, that is not generally our role, though something that we could explore. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wuthering Heights[edit]

There is one page of Wuthering Heights that can not be validated (page 329). Can anyone with some "technical" knowledge please take a look at this? Thanks, --Dick Bos (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Page:Wuthering Heights and Agnes Grey (1st edition), Volume 1 (Wuthering Heights, Volume 1).djvu/337 (page 329 of the text) and Page:Wuthering Heights and Agnes Grey (1st edition), Volume 1 (Wuthering Heights, Volume 1).djvu/329 are both green/validated. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Did we find out what the issue was, and how to fix it? I tried a few things, but was not given the option to Validate the page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: It was always validated for me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, but it wasn't validated when I looked, shortly after Dick Bos posted the original message. At that time it was "Proofread", and I could not validate it. It is "Validated " now, and I want to know what was causing the problem, and how the issue was resolved. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Understood--I'm just giving you a data point. I can't speak to how it was resolved; all I can tell you is that it was never an issue from when I saw it on the index or the individual pages themselves. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I validated it. Nothing special done. I think that Beleg Tâl stepping it back to Not Proofread and then Proofread again had benefits (why, I do not now).— Mpaa (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I thought it might be worth resetting the flag of who had marked the page as proofread, since that flag is used to prevent that user from validating. Glad it seems to have worked. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for helping to fixg this little problem! Again a work completely validated! --Dick Bos (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  • @Koavf, @Beleg Tâl, @EncycloPetey: Looking at the raw page content it seems that this may be VE related problem: the VE edits removed user info from the proofread header making it invalid. This is worth at least filling a bug. It may be worth checking if there are more VE-edited pages affected. Ankry (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, there are others (see e.g. Page:Carroll_-_Sylvie_and_Bruno_Concluded.djvu/212. See .— Mpaa (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is again a page that I cannot validate. I undid the last edit by Victuallers in VE, but that does not help. --Dick Bos (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 08:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Trying to upload Philosophical Transactions vol. 54[edit]

Hi. I wanted to add a text from Philosophical Transactions vol. 54, so I downloaded the scan from and uploaded it to Commons. For some reason the text there seems to be broken. At first I thought it had not been uploaded correctly so I tried to upload it again, but the software warned me that the same file already existed in Commons and refused to upload it (which imo means that the uploaded file and my file are the same – not one broken and the other fine – and so there is no use to try to upload it again). However, I have no problem to open the file in my computer and so I have no idea why it makes problems after uploading to Commons. Could somebody help me what the problem is? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not know what might be wrong with the pdf file. What you might do is to use tool, which will generate a .djvu file, hoping that it will behave better. If it works, you can delete the pdf version.— Mpaa (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice very much. I will try it though I do not like .dvju format very much, as the web browsers usually cannot open it (unlike .pdf files) and so the files cannot be opened on Commons without downloading them to one's computer. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I tried the recommended tool, but it did not upload the file for some unknown reason. At first it looked well, I watched the progress in the "view log". After it was finished, it disappeared from the queue as expected, but no file was uploaded to Commons, although I did not receive any message about any possible error. I tried it twice with the same result :-( Am I doing something wrong? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Most likely the file is bigger than 100M (with a similar process offline I get 120M). — Mpaa (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The .pdf file is only 26.8 MB. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
If the size was the problem, I think the application would warn me.
However, I still have no idea, why the original pdf file does not work. I tried to have a look at preview (without saving it) what the pdf scan looks like in the Page namespace here in Wikisource and the result is weird: The scan is not displayed on the right side, but the OCR text on the left is! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Now I tried to change the format from .pdf into .djvu using another online tool and uploaded it to Commons manually. I can read the .djvu file without any problems in my computer, but it is broken in Commons again, see File:Philosophical Transactions - Volume 054.djvu :-( I really do not know what to do. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Now the problem with this specific file is solved, although it is not solved generally: Commons contributor Ronhjones was so kind and corrected the pdf file by exporting it to TIFF and than to PDF again, compressing it greatly as the result was for some reason much bigger than the original pdf file (our discussion). However, it seems that the problem with pdf files generated by is quite usual: I have just experienced the same situation with the book Czech Folk Tales. :-( Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I've only a low cost PDF maker (Nuance Power PDF). I suspect my large final file size is partly related to the program. I know from afar that Acrobat Pro would give the smallest files size (but it's not cheap!). I tried a PhotoShop batch convert of the tiffs to black/white - the tiffs were much smaller, but the PDF was not - suspect the PDF maker saves every image as 24 bit colour and the 2 colour tiff is therefore rather unnecessarily expanded. Ronhjones (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
As the pdf file is missing the text layer, if you want I can try to upload the original text layer into each page. Otherwise you have to rely on the OCR gadget. I am not able to fix the pdf file directly unfortunately.— Mpaa (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I think this is not necessary as the text layer was not much better than what the OCR produces, but if you want, you can try it. Thanks for your offer. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status?[edit]

The only copy on IA I can find of Bastiat’s The Law (1850) is this one which I believe is a reprint with a modern introduction. Is it possible to cut out the introduction and upload the rest? or ? Any help gratefully accepted, cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Zoeannl: That translation was done by Dean Russell and published in 1950, and the translated version as a whole is Russel's copyright (not just the introduction). There's also an anonymous 19th-century translation from England that Russell consulted, but I haven't been able to find a standalone copy of that. However, The Law also seems to appear as an essay in the collection Essays on Political Economy ("The Law"), which is already available on Wikisource. Not that I can claim familiarity with the work, so I can't vouch for the accuracy of any of these datum. --Xover (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh! Brilliant! Well spotted! Yes, I am that thrilled. Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Cell borders in a table[edit]

Hi. I tried to make a simple table with two columns separated by a straight line, see my sandbox. However, the lines are interrupted in the places between individual rows. May I ask for advice how to achieve uninterrupted lines? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

See your sandbox for an option.— Mpaa (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Perfect! Thanks very much. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
border-collapse? Have a look at cheat stuff in {{table style}} and the parameter bcbillinghurst sDrewth 21:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

missing links to scans in a transcluded page[edit]

The page numbers linking to scans on the left side of the transcluded text are missing for some reason in Philosophical Transactions/Volume 54/An Account of the Transit of Venus. It seems there is some problem with the transcluded Page:Philosophical Transactions - Volume 054.pdf/217, because everything works well when I try to transclude only the other pages. What could the problem be, please? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Problem found: [9] --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Fixing title[edit]

I created DuPree v. Alma School District No. 30/ but the last backslash is a typo and shouldn't be there. Would an admin please move the page title to DuPree v. Alma School District No. 30 (No backslash at the end.) Alternatively if there is a template or message board for this sort of request, please point me toward it. Thank you Apt-ark (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Apt-ark: Done. But I'm pretty sure you could have done that yourself. It requires nothing more than, perhaps, autoconfirmed rights to move a page. --Xover (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Ridgway, The birds of North and Middle America: a descriptive catalogue[edit]

Hi all. The catalogue contains few parts printed in different books in 1900s and 1910s (example, [10]). I'm writting wiki-articles using this catalogue as one of the sources. To make it easier for myself I type almost whole article from book to text document. I mainly type description and range, and do not type historical names part at all. I could load it here if it makes sense. --Zanka (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Zanka: -- That work is actually on here: The DJVu can be uploaded to Commons and a transcription project can be started here. Myself or another regular user can handle the setup, unless you'd like to do it yourself? (While we have a page for Robert Ridgway, we don't seem to have any of his works hosted yet.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Blockquote over page break[edit]

I am editing a work which has many blockquotes running over page breaks (for instance here). This adds a paragraph break at transclusion which not be present. Is there a solution to this? Celuici (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: on the starting and each subsequent continuing page of every page-crossing blockquote, move the ending </blockquote> into the footer region and commence the following page with <blockquote> at the end of the header region instead of in the body. This way the normal header/footer content-hiding results in the final transclusion "seeing" but a single block of text enclosed in blockquote tags. 10:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Did you manage to get this working with a test transclusion? I did this and while the blockquote transcluded, the poem template (either tag format or <poem>) didn't. I suppose it would be possible simply to put the line breaks for poetry into a normal blockquote, and do without the <poem> markup. Celuici (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
POEM needs to be open and closed within the body of a Page: ns page. BLOCKQUOTE can be closed in the footer of one page, and opened within the header of the succeeding page. This discrepancy is due to a fundamental design issue with the extension for POEM, whereas BLOCKQUOTE is fundamental html, so functions properly. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Creation of a source from a text rather than from a scanned image.[edit]

Hi, From what I've read, the usual process for creating a source, usually a book, is to record scanned page images and then transcribe using the keyboard. In some cases OCR can help. What if the Wikitext is available already? There is no need of any scanned image. Use an empty scan input? A more direct process? Where is copyright status of a source explained? In a preface? A copyright page? Thanks, ... Peter E. unsigned comment by PeterEasthope (talk) .

Have a quick read of Wikisource:For Wikipedians. Scans are our preferred source for old works as that allows for us to undertake a validation. If a text is purely electronic, then having it "as is" is suitable, it will need to be suitably sourced. Electronic texts will be marked differently than proofread texts. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

My customized editing toolbar is not appearing[edit]

Is this a known issue? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Is anyone else having this issue? @Ineuw, @Beeswaxcandle:? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Old toolbar is showing customised buttons for me in monobook skin, with Firefox browser — billinghurst sDrewth 21:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks:I no longer remember your setup. So I uploaded two images of my Preferences\Edit File:Ineuw preferences toolbar settings 1.jpg and its result when I open a page for editing File:Matching toolbar 2.jpg. This would be the advanced toolbar! — Ineuw talk 01:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. Brief wikibreak for a few, then I will explore further. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Basically, this is the same issue as I had a couple years ago &c. (see this conversation). I have updated the old photos with current depictions of what I should/should not be seeing. Utilizing the customized <br /> button is the deal breaker for me for proofreading poetry. Thanks anyone, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks:I remember the issue and the solution. Your special keys are defined and exist in the User:Londonjackbooks/common.js. - In when looking at a page edit mode there is the Charinsert bar where your special editing keys are under "User:" at the bottom of the dropdown list. In the same common.js module, it is set to be shown above your editing window and the Wikisource editing bar. — Ineuw talk 20:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Okay, good deal. I found the break option under "User:", thanks. That should be sufficient :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Went through again your common.js and it was also defined and inserted in the advanced toolbar as you wanted. When was the last time that the toolbar was OK? Please check your "Preferences/Editing" page if the "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" is the only toolbar checked. — Ineuw talk 20:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Last time the toolbar was present ("OK") was maybe a few days prior to 24 August. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: I am not proficient to check if there was a change in the Advanced toolbar's implementation but your old code is intact. Our Mediawiki software was updated on 2018-09-11. Perhaps billinghurst would know more. — Ineuw talk 20:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Calling it a night here. The User option should be sufficient. Don't want to make things too complicated :) Have a good one! Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Large print—what have I done?[edit]

Yesterday, I did something? and now all text on WS pages is large and things are jumping around - sorry, best description I have. I have rebooted the computer, shut all WS tabs, other pages aren’t affected. Not sure how to attach a screenshot, hoping it’s something basic. Please tell me how to get it back to normal, Cheers Zoeannl (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Use Ctrl+0 to zoom out? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Alternatively ctrl-key and your mouse scroll wheel. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Ampersand in italics display error[edit]

There is an ampersand here in italics, which does not display properly. I am unable to get this to display and can't find a solution. Celuici (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Celuici: If you mean the ampersand in "See Various Prospects, &c, p. 113-123", so I can see it well in both Firefox and Chrome. What exactly does it display to you? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
It displays as follows: (See Various Prospects, &amp;c, p. 113-123.). I've tested this in both Firefox and Chrome. Celuici (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Celuici: Hm, that is weird. May be you can try to type "&amp;" or "&#38;" instead, which should both render "&". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
BTW: Do you see the ampersand well at the Page:Philosophical Transactions - Volume 054.pdf/105, or do you experience there the same problem? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, only now I noticed that you actually used the code in your previous contribution so I suppose you had also tried it there and it did not work. Hopefully somebody else will help, but I am still curious about the page I asked above, because I also used it several times thinking everybody can see it properly. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Celuici: Sounds like a browser or a cache issue, it displays fine for me. Noting that where we transclude a whole page that we wouldn't add sections. Section transclusions should only be used for partial pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I've finally discovered that this problem stems from one of the tools I've installed. Blanking my common.js page has fixed the problem. Celuici (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
@Celuici: Made a minor adjustment. Can you please check if it's still OK? — Ineuw talk 06:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ineuw: It's now displaying fine for me (having reverted by commons.js back to how it was). Celuici (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@Celuici: Thanks for letting me know. I am using the "typoscan.js" which picks up on a variety of typo errors and remembered that the &c. must not have spaces between the three characters. That is what triggered the error. The reason I asked you to check is because the typoscan script is constantly active in my environment and don't see if it looks different for others. — Ineuw talk 06:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Sidelinks to pages[edit]

The sidelinks to individual pages at Philosophical Transactions/Volume 54/An Account of the Effects of Lightening at South Weald, in Essex are not displayed properly for some reason. By various experiments I found out that only two things make them to display well:

a) removing the first paragraph (title) from the page Page:Philosophical Transactions - Volume 054.pdf/256 (as I tried here). The whole title has to be removed with all the text, removing just the templates like {{hi}} does not help.

b) dividing the text in the following page Page:Philosophical Transactions - Volume 054.pdf/257 into at least two paragraphs (as I tried here).

I have no clue what is really happening, why the title works only if the following page has more paragraphs and what is the connection between these unrelated things. Other similarly designed pages like Philosophical Transactions/Volume 54/Observations... work well.

What could be the cause of this weird behaviour? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Without being able to see the problem, I can't offer any suggestions. It looks fine for me right now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Strange, now it looks OK to me as well, although a couple of days ago I saw it broken in both Firefox and Chrome, trying it on two different and completely independent computers. Nevertheless, I thank you for looking at it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Creating pages of a book[edit]

I am asking to have the bot create the pages for this book Doing this manually is insane. — Ineuw talk 19:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Text layer is there, what is the problem? What is different from normal? — billinghurst sDrewth 21:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Creating the pages one by one is incredibly time wasting. I know that there is a bot that can create the text layer pages. I don't see why I cannot take advantage of an existing tool.— Ineuw talk 22:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand. You'll still have to proofread/validate them one by one. The only thing a bot would be able to do is save the OCR layer which seems like a waste of time. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Ditto. The book is not so big, around 300 pages only. The ocr layer is good enough. The ocr is not going to disappear suddenly. I am not able to see the problem at all. We can talk about solutions if you can be more explicit about what the problem actually is. Hrishikes (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The application of text layers means someone getting onto their bot account, downloading the image file, setting up scripts, then when it is all finished, a clean-up, so is not an effortless task. I will do it where there is the benefit of having text layers for searching/looking for text, as has been done for biographical works, eg. Index:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 1.djvu. I don't do it for any of the general works that I otherwise transcribe as I don't find that it saves time over simply creating the page and proofreading it, especially when applying headers. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
It is not my intention to have someone assemble a scripts and monitor the running of a bot. I assumed that such a bot exists because all the pages of the Popular Science Monthly were created by the User:Mjbot before I began to proofread them.
I now realize that our editing/proofreading approach is different. I imagine that most editors work on a book by creating the page, and completing the proofreading process in one go. I tried this as well, but found it difficult to work like that. Will explore another method of page creation using AutoHotkey. So please forget this request. — Ineuw talk 04:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Mjbot's operations were of a different time and place in the development of Proofread Page, and the ready ability to grab a text layer were more fraught. Back then it definitely was beneficial, these days not so. Plus Matt loved botting and disliked proofreading. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I figured that it was Matt who did it. I just thought that it was a regular practice for all works. - These Mexico related books I am preparing is mostly for User:Gumr51 who loves proofreading, subjects about Mexico, but not the formatting and standardizing, and this works for me. His way of proofreading is altogether different. He downloads the text layer and using two monitors, he edits in MS Word, converts the result to ANSI text and then pastes it.— Ineuw talk 06:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ineuw: That sounds like a reasonable reason to run the bot through. I will try to get to it, though have limited time with access to my PC from where I get access, so I cannot guarantee anything, or anything, anytime soon. Suggest stick something at WS:BR giving the Index: link, the File: link, and ensure that the Index: has the required header and footer detail prior, and you are asking from someone to run through the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC) does not require to download the file. It fetches text from the page itself.— Mpaa (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Please don't waste your time. I have a good chance to implement an automated method with AutoHotkey, with help from their forum members. AutoHotkey understands precise display screen coordinates and emulates mouse clicks well. I plan to give an explanation and a demo.— Ineuw talk 07:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

In some books, eg. in Index:Ossendowski - From President to Prison.djvu (pages 314-360) the OCR layer displayed by MediaWiki is shifted (while internally in DjVu it is aligned correctly). It would be nice to have a bot that can extract the text layer directly from DjVu and upload it in such cases. Ankry (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

For mass creation of ocred pages, one can use the OCR4wikisource script. The software will: 1. Download the book from Wikimedia Commons, 2. Split the file into individual pdf/djvu pages, 3. Convert the individual pdf/djvu pages into jpg files, 4. Upload the jpg files to Google Drive one by one for doing OCR, 5. Download the OCRed text and 6. Upload them to respective Wikisource pages. But still I feel that such an approach is not required in English Wikisource, except when, as Billinghurst said, searchable text, even in not-proofread pages, is desirable. Hrishikes (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: I think, the procedure metioned by you will be too heavy and unnecessary overload when there is a good OCR in djvu, but it is incorrectly aligned to pages by Mediawiki/Proofreadpage software. Using seems to be the best solution in such cases. However, as there was only 45 pages affected in the above example, I have already aligned the text manually. Ankry (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

To SIC or not to SIC[edit]

So I see a word misspelled in the original. Only, it's *really* obvious that 'spiine' is 'spine'. Would you {{SIC}} the dogs tags on it? Shenme (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Er, you can use the template, that's why it exists. In this case, if I saw "spiine" in the mains namespace, I would assume it was the proofreader's typo if it wasn't annotated and go to the page namespace to fix it. I personally would use the annotation in that scenario. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. But I've got another obvious misspelling, only it isn’t, only it will be seen as a misspelling by everyone born since 1900. This page hurts my sense of right/wrong, yet when I look around I find a short mention in Wikipedia:
Before about 1850, the spelling "Frith" was more common.
The book being edited was published 1850.
Is there a method for adding an explanatory note to a word/phrase, whereby the modern editor can explain to the modern reader what the heck is going on? Is there an {{AntiSIC}}? Shenme (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
There are too many archaic spellings (such as compleat x complete, shew x show...) and some texts could be flooded with SIC templates. Besides that, somebody's sense of right and wrong can be hurt also by archaic grammar (e. g. "broke" being past participle of "break"). I think that readers of old texts should be prepared to meeting obsolete spellings and grammar. If we just want to avoid other contributors correcting such seeming mistakes, we can notify them using the lowercase template {{sic}}. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. We aren't here to expand people's vocabularies, only to preserve writings in their original form. Explanatory notes are already discouraged by the community as noted at WS:ANN. I would use {{SIC}} for printer errors but use {{sic}} otherwise, if at all. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Ugh I didn't even realize {{sic}} was a separate template. Which ... doesn't even do anything? :(
But yes, {{SIC}} for printer's errors/typos. I also use it for egregious mistakes on behalf of the auth, such as when they're talking about some groups ABC and DEF and indicate one where they obviously meant the other. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
In fact {{sic}} works in a similar way as <!-- -->. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Partial works[edit]

Hi. Over the last few years I've digitised a whole lot of books with Supreme Court decisions and I'm interested in uploading the scans to Wikisource. In my communications with the Supreme Court they are not ready to state that anything outside the actual decisions is also out of copyright. However, I see nothing on the help pages if it's allowed or not to upload only certain parts of works or not due to copyright reasons. If it's allowed, what's the best method to indicate a page has been retracted for that reason so it can be uploaded later when it's indeed in the public domain? Thanks in advance for your responses. -Svavar Kjarrval (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

We generally do not host the scans of works here at Wikisource. Scans of works are housed at Commons. So it would be better to broach this issue in discussion at Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey, You are technically correct, what I meant to say was: to include it here after uploading it to Commons. The reason why it's better to discuss it here (first) is that the work would eventually (if allowed) be referenced here, as there wouldn't be much point in uploading it to Commons otherwise, and the community here is more likely to have a more detailed experience in uploading works for that purpose. -Svavar Kjarrval (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Two points:
  1. Per our inclusion policy, "Random or selected sections of a larger work, are generally not acceptable." However if the portion can be considered a work in its own right (either as one work out of a collection, or because that passage has been published separately as a work in its own right), then there should be no problem hosting it. I assume that a Supreme Court decision can be considered a work in its own right so there should be no problem there.
  2. I would like to provide you an example of a work I added in which significant portions of the publication were redacted for copyright reasons: The Tale of Kitty-in-Boots, with associated scan File:Kitty-in-boots.pdf. This may be a useful example in setting up your own project.
I hope this is helpful. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl, Thanks for your example. I'll look into it and see [if/how well] it can be applied in my case. -Svavar Kjarrval (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Heinrich Oskar Sommer (1861 - when?)[edit]

I'm trying to upload The recuyell of the historyes of Troye, the first book published in English. The problem is, the version commonly available is edited by Heinrich Oskar Sommer (Wikidata) in England, and while I could upload it to Wikisource, I was hoping that someone could establish a death date before 1948 so I could upload it to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Died in 1929: -- Hrishikes (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Did a quick search, and added some research to author talk page, and migrated the data to WD. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 17[edit]

I would like to proofread a couple of pages of Index:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 17.djvu, but I have noticed there the warning that the "source file must be fixed before proofreading". The problem probably is that subpage 15 and subpage 17 are identical, while subpage 16 is missing. May I ask for help with fixing it, please? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: -- Pages 16 and 17 are extra. They can be tagged as "without text". Hrishikes (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: Page 16 is completely missing so there is nothing to tag, it will stay as a red link forever. The only reason why I am writing here is that it is explicitely written at the index page that editors should not start proofreading before the issue is fixed. Or can the warning be ignored/removed? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: I think you can go ahead. All pages have been created, so if fixing the file will require a page move, the Proofread status will not make any difference at that point.— Mpaa (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: You can mark them as "without text" and give explanation in the header. For page 16: Duplicate of page 14 (yes, it is not missing, it is a blank). For page 17: Duplicate of page 15. In the pagelist, the query marks can be replaced with Dup. If there is no other problem, the work status can be changed to to be proofread after taking care of those two pages. Hrishikes (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


Esme Shepherd (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC) I have been looking at the instructions for endnotes. I will be posting a document soon that has 44 endnotes spread over 13 pages in the original. If I include them as footnotes, they will all appear in order when transcluded, so that seems to be the best way forward. What I don't understand is how they are to be proofread. For one thing, as far as I can see those 13 pages will be blank, as the notes will all have been put into < ref >< /ref >s in the 51 main text pages, but the text will not therefore appear side by side and some of them are quite complex, being in foreign languages.

@Esme Shepherd: Are you saying the work itself has endnotes, and has references interspersed pointing to these? Endnotes as endnotes with pointers are a bit trickier to represent as neatly in both Page: and main namespaces, though we have some means to do that. I would want to see the specific work to comment more thoroughly.

I have created a template {{authority reference}} which can be use directly, or if there is some complexity, it can be adapted for use like I did with A Compendium of Irish Biography and {{IrishBio ref}}. This is not basic stuff to create, and happy to assist. Don't let it hold up the proofreading, as we can retrofit templates, so if you put in normal references markings like <ref name="ref1" />, <ref name="ref2" />, etc. then we can a bot through to resolve. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

In the Mediæval Hymns example, which puts the endnotes at the end as it were and therefore proof-readable, I can see the use of < ref name="xxx" > and < ref follow="xxx" > but do not understand the meaning of ​ Is this a code for a blank?

#8203 is unicode for a zero width space, see Hard to comment further without exactly seeing what you are seeing. I would normally remove these in the works I am transcribing as they are often OCR artefacts. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I added that instruction. If you put nothing inside <ref name="xxx">, then it doesn't work. If you put something inside <ref name="xxx">, then it does work, but the thing you put inside it is now in the footnote also. That is why I put &#8203; — it allows the footnote to work but also does not show anything in the footnote. (As an aside, I have recently been using {{em|0}} instead of &#8203; for this purpose, and the effect is the same.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Esme Shepherd (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you for looking at this. I wasn't going to post this just yet but, as there are other similar cases, I have now done so. It is in Felicia Hemans - Subcategory:Hemans Published Volumes - Modern Greece. The first note reference is on page 3 of the poem and the note appears on page 55. Note also that note 3 overlaps from page 55 onto page 56, something that occurs a number of times. I have all the text ready to add, so I will start doing so soon. Hope you can find a good solution.

Esme Shepherd (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC) I see Beleg Tâl's method now. If the note number in the text is indicated by <ref name="p3.14">blank </ref> and my note on page 55 is enclosed by <ref follow="p3.14">....... </ref>, the two will be linked and will appear as note 1. As to the blank, I have myself used gap|0em in the past. Does this work in practice and is it an acceptable solution? Note 3 would then be name="p6.12" and have ref follow="p6.12" on both pages 55 and 56.

To that I can only say: try it, and if it doesn't work you can use one of the alternate methods we have discussed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
If we are talking continuing footnotes and a nomenclature, I usually do the page number of the first page of the note, e.g. p60, then as many follow=p60 on all subsequent instances of the continuing footnotes. I don't go poking any other code, that is just making things hard for oneself, best to keep it simple so others can follow. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Esme Shepherd (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Agreed about simplicity: the reason for the p3.14 is that 14 is the line number and there will be both a p12.16 and a p12.17. However, maybe when there is only one note to a page I should stick to p3, as you suggest. Page 21 has three notes to it.

Confused frog inquiring about Lilypond[edit]

I thought that at one point I had found the version of Lilypond in use here at Wikisource, but now I can’t confirm that. I thought I’d seen 2.12.xx. How can one find the current version numbers for tools used here?

I note that I found this note for the Score extension 0.3, that allows use of Lilypond to create music scores:

This extension was tested with LilyPond 2.12.3 through 2.18.2.

The concern is that, if indeed we have only 2.12.xx here, then much is documented for the current version 2.18.2 (2014) that is in fact unavailable to us. Lots.

There have been considerable changes since 2.12.xx (2.12.3 December 2009):

New features in 2.14 since 2.12 (2.14.2 July 2011)
New features in 2.16 since 2.14 (2.16.0 August 2012)
New features in 2.18 since 2.16 (2.18.2 March 2014)

Obviously knowing the version installed here will help people select the correct documentation. As it is, all our links here to get the most recent stable version docs. Shenme (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Shenme: Special:Version: LilyPond 2.18.2. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Music to my ears! Thank you. Shenme (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Multiple-volume works[edit]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

What's the guideline for multiple-volume works? Should I create a single page listing all of the volumes and add them to an author's page, or should I not and list every volume individually? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The best answer to this is "it depends". If you mean something like The Small House at Allington, which is a single novel published in two volumes, then just a single listing on the Author page. If you mean something else, can you please clarify what you are thinking about? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The 8 volumes I'm writing about were published separately but are about the same subject. However, it's a collection of translation of Indian historical texts of various historical periods. For example, a text about Akbar's reign and the next are about Jahangir or Shah Jahan. They don't form a single narrative even in the same volume. The work is called The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. It is authored by Henry Miers Elliot. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
We have several projects like this, e.g. The Sikh Religion currently in progress. Treat it like a single work, with the volumes as sub-pages, and chapters as sub-sub-pages. I can give you more examples if you like. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I got it. Thanks for the help. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
One has to evaluate if there is value in sub and sub sub pages. If there is no requirement to show the volumes, then you don't have to reproduce in that regard, ie. just go work at top, and the subworks as subpages. This works well where they were all the volumes were published as a set. It does not work well where there are iterative components, eg. a series of indices, or works of the same name, or parts of works. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The 8 volumes of The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period were published separately over 10 years. I've already created a page where I will list the contents of all volumes because I didn't think there might be a problem. If anyone wants to remove that page and move Volume I back to its old title, I have no problem. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I've put the above common-name page up for speedy deletion as these volumes cover different periods and are essentially different books. Not much will be served with the common page which can't be accomplished by simply including the common-name on author's page and the volumes in bullets. Plus the contents being placed after the prefaces will create another problem. Someone please delete it. Thanks. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I have deleted the page, though not for your reasons. I have deleted as there is no work there, and we have found it problematic for us to have empty title pages without text. Far better to work on the transcription/proofread process until we have text to transclude.

We would always publish this work under that title if that is the title of the work where that is what the editor and author created, and we honour their edition(s). It is not for us to redetermine some new concept, or think that we are more expert. The discussion around the naming should be around whether we do "Title/Volume N/Work name" or "Title/Work name". — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

We can answer generic questions when supplied generic information. When we say it depends, that would be a pretty good indicator that specific answers that we need specific information. We are mostly comfortable providing this advice, however, don't make it hard for us, and don't expect us to do the work. In a situation where you asking about how we might transclude a multi-volume work, it is premature to ask those sort of questions when there is no text here, no proofreading done, and not even anything local to which an expression can be made. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Alright I'll think about it later when I've completed all the volumes. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Frame split across two pages[edit]

This document has a box split across two pages: Page:The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change.pdf/23, Page:The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change.pdf/24 I'm using Template:frame for the box effect, and the pages work individually, but when they are transcluded (halfway down The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change/Section 3) the frame tag and end tag do not render. Thanks in advance for any help, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done , use {{frame/s}} and {{frame/e}} —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Need some help[edit]

Hi all, I am currently working on Indian parliamentary committees on the english wikipedia - Politicoindian.

I saw that the Constitution of India has been uploaded here and was wondering if I could upload other Indian parliament relevant documents here as well.

I have PDFs of these documents. I am trying to understand how I can upload the following documents to wikisource and what would be the process for it.

Cheers - --Politicoindian (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit - All these documents are in the public domain in India and covered under the GODL-India licence. --Politicoindian (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
See Help:Beginner's_guide_to_adding_texts.— Mpaa (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mpaa: - I had gone through that, but I was wondering if the upload can only be done via page scans. If that is the scenario, boy o boy, is that gonna be a task. I don't have print copies and I don't really relish or look forward to the time required for scanning and uploading of these files. I thought that I have PDF of these documents and if there is a way they could be uploaded directly. I am only asking for a clarification. My apologies if I am sounding a bit dumb on this. --Politicoindian (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@Politicoindian: Our advice about proofreading is based on the majority of the works that we reproduce are pre-electronic age, and predominantly 1923, so we rely on scans to proofread. For any paper-based original that is going to be our advice for a true replication. Modern documents are usually paper secondarily and electronically primarily. If you have a true source of documents in an electronic form, then it is suitable just to remember that we rely on VERSIONS so legislation will always have a point of time reference. So an example in Victoria, Australia there is the [Emergency Management Act], which of the 46 versions from 1986 to 2014 would you think we would be looking to bring here? We cannot manage legislation as well as the respective legislatures; we can reproduce iconic legislation of a point in time. We are not going to be anything near as comprehensive as AustLII. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: - Thank you for your answer, I understand your point on legislation. However these documents are not exactly legislation like acts or laws, rather these are the the documents which form the basis of how the Indian parliament should ideally function and how the business of each chamber is to be conducted. So these do not undergo many revisions. The first two are on 15th and 8th revisions respectively.
Also I am still a bit sketchy on the upload and writing aspect of these documents. As in do I just upload these files and then start an article(work) or am I missing any other step in between? OR Can I directly start working on the article using these documents as reference/source. Another point, does wikisource have a place like wikipedia sandbox where we keep working on the drafts and then submit it once completed?
PS - I found the following pages helpful. Wikisource:For Wikipedians & Help:Adding texts. This page Help:Beginner's_guide_to_adding_texts should either be expanded or plain deleted, it is sorely lacking--Politicoindian (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

No footnote, just a marker[edit]

What is customary to do where there footnote text is missing but there are markers in the text as it is here? — Ineuw talk 22:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

These are endnotes references (starting from Page:The War with Mexico, Vol 1.djvu/432). Follow Help:Footnotes and endnotes. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

A broken main namespace header template[edit]

This is not urgent. Would someone point out the error of the header template on this PAGE? I can't figure out the problem.— Ineuw talk 06:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ineuw: The line
| previous   = [[The War with Mexico/Volume 1/Maps, Conspectus and Spanish|Maps, Conspectus and Spanish]
is not a proper link due to a missing trailing ]. Add that and your problem ought to go away. 10:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out. — Ineuw talk 18:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Images not appearing[edit]


I'm new here, and am trying to put up some government testimony. It's located at Index:1954 Juvenile Delinquency Testimony.pdf, and I'm wondering why my pages are displaying OCR-grabbed text but no images. Any suggestions appreciated. Etzedek24 (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Etzedek24: -- Yes check.svg Done -- Hrishikes (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
@Etzedek24: It is the same problem which has already been reported to phabricator. If you want you can add your comment there as well to help to raise its priority. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

J.S. Machar, The Jail[edit]

I found the book The Jail (1921) by J. S. Machar in Google books, but only some fragments of the text are available online. However, my experience is that Google books limit the access for non-US readers more than for US readers and so I would like to ask if some US contributor were so kind and looked at it to check its availability. Thanks! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the English translation is only available as a "snippet", even for US persons. The Czech (?) original here appears to be available in full, though that doesn't help too much in this case. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks like it's available from Hathi Trust: . Someone with institutional access should be able to snag it. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mukkakukaku: Thanks for your effort! It would be great if somebody managed to get it from the Hathi Trust library. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: I can get it for you in a couple of hours when I will have some time. I don't have access but there is a program I use that allows you to download it called hathi downloader helper. Jpez (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jpez: Thanks very much for the advice. I have just tried it and although I did not manage to download the helper from that site, I found it on some other site too. However, it cannot find the book, although I supplied it with the url of the book. I am not sure if I did something wrong, but I also noticed that Hathi also offers only limited access and not the full view, which might be the reason why I failed here as well :-( Despite this, thanks for a very good suggestion, I will probably use it in future with other books. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jpez, @Mukkakukaku: When searching for some other publication, I found out that Hathi Trust probably also distinguishes among US and non-US users. Is it possible that the Machar's book or the exhibition catalogue have full view accessible from the US? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Not sure about the restrictions on US/non-US users at Hathi (I didn't use it at all when I was overseas), but I can confirm that the one I initially linked (, the book) is fully visible for US users. I'm just on a particularly slow internet connection right now so I can't manage to download it myself using the download helper. The exhibition catalog is also viewable -- did you want someone to snag that too?
You might be able to fool Hathi's location sniffer by using a US-based proxy. I can't recommend any since I don't actually need one (being here myself). --Mukkakukaku (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mukkakukaku: Thanks for your offer, but I finally succedded downloading the catalog following the Jpez's advice, despite the fact that the Hathi site does not allow me to have full view from Czechia. Good to see there are always people willing to help at :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: I'm currently downloading the book for you. I also don't have access to it as it must only be available in the US. I think you have to have have "enable automatic proxy server activation" checked in the hathi download helper. It's under "options" then "user settings". Also make sure your using a link such as [11] and not [12] for example. I'll upload it for you but you can play around with it if you'd like to see how it works. Jpez (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Uploaded to commons The Jail, Experiences in 1916 Jpez (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jpez: Perfect, thanks very much! I will have a look at the uploader to see if the "enable automatic proxy server activation" makes any change so that I can upload a book myself next time. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate document + duplicate transcription project[edit]

Hi, Index:ODNI Statement on Declassified Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections.pdf seems to be the same document as Index:Intelligence Community Assessment - Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections.pdf. From the name of the earlier file I thought it was a statement on the ICA assessment, so I went ahead and uploaded and formatted the assessment itself, but it turns out they are the same. Argh. Is it possible to eliminate the first (just begun) transcription project/ redirect it to the second (nearly finished)? I realise there needs to be a merger on Commons, but first I hope we can prevent people working on the duplicate transcription here on Wikisource. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The Holly-Tree vs The Holly-Tree Inn: two versions of the same work with different names[edit]

I'm (slowly) transcluding Index:Dickens - A Child s History of England, 1900.djvu, which contains a volume of reprinted Charles Dickens short stories. I've run into an (annoying) scenario where Dickens apparently tended to publish his short stories in magazines as serials. After his death, these short stories would be reprinted in short story collections. However, these reprints didn't always include the same parts -- eg. if a work was in 5 parts, a reprint might only contain parts 1, 2, and 4. And some reprints contain different wording or phrasing, omitting words or entire paragraphs at times. It's (a bit) frustrating.

But I've just come across a rather ... interesting dilemma. At some point -- possibly 1855 -- Dickens published a short story. It was called either "The Holly-Tree" or "The Holly-Tree Inn". (Wikipedia very helpfully has annotated this work in his bibliography as "citation needed," so I can't be sure.) And, of course, we have The Holly-Tree (from an 1894 short story collection, copy-pasted from Project Gutenberg) and The Holly-Tree Inn (from a 1900 short story collection, volume 2 of the work I'm transcluding.) Of course the texts are different; The Holly-Tree appears to contain parts 1, 2, and 5 -- and some of the phrasing is different.

Since these are the same version of the same work, I would usually slap a {{versions}} page in front of it to disambiguate. But not only are these two different versions, they are published under different names. I'm not sure what to do here -- do I leave them where they are, since were technically published under separate names? Do I use a hatnote to link them to each other? A versions page seems more appropriate, but I'm not even sure where to stick it if I go that route. :( --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mukkakukaku: -- You can see the original here -- -- Hrishikes (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not at all unusual for different editions to have different names. I run into this issue all the time with translated works, where different translators have translated the titles differently: The Eumenides vs The Furies, or Phoenician Women vs Phoenician Maidens. Pick the title that seems best suited, then create redirects from the alternative forms of the title. If it helps, select the international standard title used by VIAF, or by the Library of Congress. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
That's the problem, I can't prove they're different editions. If you look at these two works, they're fundamentally different. The structure of The Holly-Tree is imitating "branches" -- I'm no literary critic, but there's some sort of nature allegory going on. The Holly-Tree Inn, on the other hand, is more of a "here are a set of five intertwined stories that all happened at this/these inn(s)". It seems almost like the Holly-Tree is an earlier version than the Inn, with the Inn wrapping a framing story around the older work.
The text in Hrishikes's version matches that of the 1900 reprint (The Holly-Tree Inn). The more I google about, the more I'm convinced that they're actually somewhat separate works -- The Holly-Tree being published repeatedly in this "three branches" form, and the Holly Tree Inn having this ... framing story around it. Here's another reprint of The Holly-Tree:
I think at the end of the day they're different works. I'll leave them be. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
If they are fundamentally the same work, even if the versions are significantly different, I would not hesitate to make a versions page for them. See: O Canada, Esther (Bible), Trial by Jury, etc. However I don't think this approach is necessary, especially if you're not in the mood to do the research to back it up. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
But under what name? They're published under different names -- similar ones, but it's not like the extraneous word is a "the" or something which could be omitted. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Like I said, it needs research. The original work is The Holly-Tree Inn, which was a special Christmas edition of the Household Words periodical published in 1855. This work contains three stories by Dickens and several by other authors, with a framing narrative by Dickens. The three stories by Dickens were subsequently published together with the title The Holly Tree. I would therefore have The Holly-Tree Inn as the main work page, since that's the original title of the complete work, and The Holly-Tree redirect to it, and all editions (either full or Dickens-only) linked from there. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
In all cases I've seen all five parts attributed to Dickens. Even the Household Words serial (that Hrishikes linked above) doesn't indicate any authorship other than him. The version I transcluded to The Holly-Tree Inn is entirely attributed to him, and in this particular collection (The Holly-Tree Inn and Other Reprinted Pieces), they go out of their way to only print the parts he wrote of other "collaborative" works. While doing research I did see some claims that Dickens only "contributed" the three parts being printed as The Holly-Tree, but I've not been able to find the actual source of this claim. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
This site has the most info that I could find: " 'The Ostler' by Wilkie Collins, 'The Boots' by himself, 'The Landlord' by William Howitt, 'The Barmaid' by Adelaide Anne Procter, and 'The Poor Pensioner' by Harriet Parr ('Holme Lee'). " It also states that Dickens wrote bits and pieces from each one to tie them all together. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Two duplicated pages in an index[edit]

Index:Cambridge Medieval History Volume 3.pdf has two duplicate pages. See:


What's the procedure for this kind of error? Does the index itself need to be fixed, or some warning put on the individual pages not to transcribe duplicates? Thanks in advance for any help. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

You should stop proofreading and fix the file (delete duplicates and reupload it) and fix pagelist accordingly. In this case, the only affected pages will be 747-748, which will have to be deleted. It it were a djvu file instead a pdf, I would have fixed it for you. I do not have tools for pdf, I am sure someone will fix it shortly in case you can't.— Mpaa (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done -- Hrishikes (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Rotating feature[edit]

In the page (this one), I was not able to create the table since the image cannot be rotated. Can the images present in a page be rotated for editing purpose in wikipedia?Adithyak1997 (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I’ve printed the page out in a similar circumstance. Zoeannl (talk)

TOC breaking when transcluded[edit]

Looking okay in page space but table markup leaking in the transcluded version. Thanks in advance for any help, MartinPoulter (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done : you need a {{nop}} for tables over multiple pages. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

page numbers and images at work[edit]

I put together Illustrations of the family of Psittacidæ, or parrots and have two requests for assistance. The work is widely cited for different reasons, taxonomic and historic being my first interest in this extraordinary work by an author whose work you already know.

The first is the page numbers are being suppressed by something, perhaps an accidental exclusion in the page number js. Is the answer to use a table instead of a float right in the caption?

My next concern is the image quality, I am not in a position to conservatively extract the exquisite lithograthic prints. My preference is to whiteout the page colour, crop out the caption, and take what is obtainable as is. Any help with this is toward a valuable inclusion here, and credit for that should be assumed when improving my draft. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I see two potential problems: (1) The use of "1to102=" "" to create an absence of page numbers, and (2) for the other pages, the use of page numbers that are too long to display. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Shortcuts are no more[edit]

Where have these shortcuts/tools (I don't know how to call them correctly, sorry) gone on English Wikisource (see this picture)? How could we bring them back? Thank you! --Miwako Sato (talk) 08:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

See discussion above :( Zoeannl (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Text is off by one page in index[edit]

In Index:Dr Andrew Ure a slight sketch.djvu, the text for page 12 appears on page 11 and so on through the whole file. Is there a short-cut fix for this that doesn't involve pressing the OCR button 30 times? Thanks in advance for any help, MartinPoulter (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I would usually call on @Mpaa: for such an issue... But of course, anyone who can help can... Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Done.— Mpaa (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikitext editor[edit]

Can I have some help with finding a replacement for the 2006 editor, please? I read the notice on Scriptorium that there are other versions-where are they etc. I don’t like the visual editor but that may be from lack of familiarity-is it worth learning? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You can use the source editor if you don't like the visual editor. That's what I do, personally. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
But the pulldown menu has gone. With the templates, special characters etc. @Ineuw: Can you help me? I am proofreading a novel in the meantime … Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Zoeannl: I also lost the "CharInsert", but there is a solution. I am uploading 5 screen images for the setup I am using as a replacement, and will post here the images' links after upload. — Ineuw talk 08:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
File:1 - Preferences - Edit page setup.jpg
File:2 -Preferences - Gadgets 1.jpg
File:3 - Preferences - Gadgets 2.jpg
File:4 - Advanced toolbar - Special characters.jpg
File:5 - Advanced toolbar - Proofread tools.jpg
Ineuw talk 09:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply @Ineuw:. So we’ve lost the advanced toolbar somehow. I copied your set up but my toolbar is different from yours in File 5—I don’t have the Advanced or the Help, just the Proofreading. What version of the editor are you using? I will still miss the template list … Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Zoeannl: I forgot to mention/ask what skin are you using. This in itself may affect the availability of toolbars. I am using the Vector skin.

I’m using the vector skin.
The advanced toolbar is selected in the Edit page of Preferences. I think you are referring to the Gadgets' "CharInsert" drop down list where the "user" can define characters and wiki code and these are defined/activated by the common.js - that we seemed to have lost. It may be best to search past upcoming announcements of changes. These are published in their weekly post placed in the Scriptorium.

There is a notice saying 2006 is now defunct and to use later versions but without instructions on how to … Zoeannl (talk) 22:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The (last) possibility is that there is a bug in the current software update. — Ineuw talk 21:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, I only have "advanced" and "special characters", but not "proofreading". It disappeared after I toggled on/off the "enhanced" toolbar (via editing page of preferences). Also CharInsert is broken entirely right now, I think, more so than the rest of this stuff. (Toggling it on/off does nothing, and the extra functionality it used to provide are missing entirely.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I saw the notice about the defunct 2006 editor, but to tell the truth, I wouldn't know where to find information on the editor I am using now. As for the latest editor, I downloaded it from Mediawiki but must study how to implement it. When I get it working, I will post the info here. — Ineuw talk 23:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I found this m:wiki/Editor. Useful? Zoeannl (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Changes in Preferences[edit]

@Zoeannl: and @Mukkakukaku:

  1. The first thing I did is to check my Wikipedia setup where the "CharInsert" and the "Advanced" toolbar still exist as I set it up years ago.
  2. I reset all my Preferences to the default which completely changed the old Preferences pages' layouts. The changes are confusing as they also have a Global setup to be "ticked" to match one's settings Globally. There is a caveat. After saving one's Preferences page,(remember that each Preferences page must be saved individually), it is important to check if the preferred settings have been registered. If a preference did not register and is greyed out, one must "tick on" the local 'Exception to the Global settings' option to access the failed registration to be "ticked on" and save it again.
  3. 'Remove classic edit toolbar support from ProofreadPage' is listed on Phabricators' list of bugs, but there is no way to tell which toolbar they are talking about. The problem is that there are no tags on the toolbars to indicate a model ID.
  4. Other things are unknown as yet, an "/extensions" folder? And whether this will replace the current Common.js and Common css. . . . since there are new links introduced adjoining the skins, like Vector.js and Vector.css. However access to the old Common.js and Common.css no longer exist in the Preferences.— Ineuw talk 01:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Some notes to the above list:
1. the CharInsert gadget on enWP has been upgraded to use jquery.textSelection, while that here hasn't been and it was therefore disabled as a part of the removing the "classic" toolbar.
3. the "classic" toolbar is the 2006 toolbar. The removal is global and not just in ProofreadPage. However, there is a local gadget version available (as used on frWP).
To get any of the functionality back requires someone with more knowledge than I have. The information is all in Phabricator ticket T30856. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The loss of our only means to quickly insert an en-dash and em-dash is a huge blow to my editing. Hunting for those two characters every time I need to insert them slows down my editing significantly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Those are available in symbols set of special characters: –, —. I think the problem may be that our gadget-charinsert.js calls charinsert.core. Bengali Wikisource has the content of the core page directly on the gadget page and charinsert is available there. Hrishikes (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I am getting the impression that decisions have been made at higher levels without due consideration of the impact at wikisource. This pisses me off as I see so much potential for this site. I know I get a lot out of it. It's nice to know that the books I've (proof)read are now available to anyone on the internet.

To be frank, the editor as it was needed a total overhaul from a proofreaders point of view. It could be a very useful support for new proofreaders, a key tool for teaching new people how to wiki. I think it would be great kudos for Wikisource to be the place where newbies can come to learn how to wiki without having to worry about content and a discussion of how these tools could support proofreading with this intent in mind would be very valuable. I thing WS could get a lot more support and respect from the Wikipedia community if we pitched this as a key aim of WS: to be the community that teaches wiki skills from the most basic level. This would require a training process, like at Distributed Proofreaders: that would mean (shock, horror) standard ways to do things that support people who are low or un-skilled. I've learned an awful lot since starting here but by sheer bloodymindedness and an inclination to learn. Most people wouldn't withstand the learning process. Which is why, in my humble opinion, proofreaders are so scarce here. There is an assumed level of competence with working on a wiki as a prerequisite to contributing at WS. I have found that generally, the culture here is really good, people don't jump down your throats like at WP. There is huge potential for people to choose their level of contribution, once they are past that initial learning curve so newbies can work at their own pace and get comfortable. It could be the place to which wikipedians retreat when they have encountered shit at WP, or they just aren't up to dealing with it. With tools that make it easy to work from a limited skill set + a decent help + consensus on a standard, perhaps fencing off certain works as beginners level or having their own standard like Popular Science (with an appointed Project Manager, as at DP), people would have clear guidelines of the expected skill level and they could choose appropriately. Then we can be really supportive of people at the level they are at. WS could feed WP with upskilled contributors and WS would be recommended to anyone on any other wiki site as the place to go to upskill so we get more proofreading done. Win, win.

So that's my spiel, any suggestions where to take this idea? Nicely please, but I am always open to critical discussion. Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I am very pleased with myself because I was able to remember how to sign off without my toolbar button. :)

We're kind of small fries compared to, say, any of the top-5 Wikipedias. Which is to say being considered the 'afterthought' is totally normal by the folks who write the software. And as someone who writes software for a living, I totally understand that.
(Personally, I hated what Distributed Proofreaders did. I wasted about 100 hours on them without getting privileges to do any sort of interesting work then decided WS was a much better community because they actually allowed me to work on what interested me.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree, DP was too limiting for me too. But you have to admit their training and help is great cf WS. Zoeannl (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I am having no problem with my toolbar. I am using this one for a long time, and it is intact (at least, I think so). The CharInsert is gone however, although I am still getting it in Bengali Wikisource, where I also work. There too, I use the same toolbar, and it is intact. Hrishikes (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
So my tool bar doesn't have the Advanced (so no Special Characters) or Help, just the Proofreading. I have Enhanced ticked in preferences. I still have no idea what version of wikieditor I am using ... [and now my automatic ellipses has gone. Serious sulks :(] Zoeannl (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Zoeannl: Hope this suggestion does not invoke further reasons to sulk :-) but has anybody considered adopting the habit of using the "standard" HTLM entity codes — even if only as a temporary measure until CharInsert et al are "repaired"?
— &ndash; gives –; &mdash; gives —; &hellip; gives …; &alpha; gives α; … &omega; gives ω; (and &Omega; gives Ω) &c., &c… It is amazing how "naturally" a lot of this stuff becomes after a while! Even some of the “weirder” entities like &zwj; (zero-width join‍er) work.
P.S. "standard" is a bit of a cheat term but 'most all browsers now treat these entities as "built-in." 05:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I was under the impression this was discouraged but can't remember why? Re. supporting the non-digital literate (like me), this is obviously another hurdle to jump. It took me long enough to learn how to use the toolbar... Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
This edit appears to be the solution. @Beleg Tâl, @Mpaa, @Hesperian: -- Hrishikes (talk) 08:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: what am I looking at? Is this the change arWS made to restore the missing gadget? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: -- Yes, this will bring back CharInsert. Hrishikes (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone understand what has to be done to bring our "CharInsert"-rule back (not only here on en-ws, but also on nl-wikisource, for instance)? I really don't understand much about this technical things, especially not when they are (partly) in Bengali. Who can help us with this? --Dick Bos (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


I am trying to pinpoint where CharInsert fails, according to the instructions written by A. Klapper at Phabricator.

  • In the meanwhile . . .
  • If you are using Windows, any version, I highly recommend downloading and installing Autohotkey keyboard macro app with which one can assign any character or action performed with the keyboard.
  • If you are using Linux, install Autokey which is similar to Autohotkey, but not as well developed.

I can help editors with both software and thus bypass the unending issues with the Wikimedia software development.— Ineuw talk 21:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I tried the suggested change in Phab ticket (see [13]), basically doing the following:
Now the charinsert at least appears.
I just followed the instructions and I am not able to judge if this is OK/enough or not. A revision from someone more technical-savvy is a must and more than welcome.
For the time being I'll leave it as is, hoping it will not create problems. The only issue is that no one else can amend the change before I (or @Zhaladshar, @Hesperian:) will enable the willing user's 'Admin interface' bit.— Mpaa (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Somebody changed it, because it's working again on my editing pages. - Ineuw talk
@Mpaa: A very big thank you Maestro!!!!— Ineuw talk 01:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, all. As previously announced at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Support ends for the 2006 wikitext editor, the 2006WTE was removed last week. Wikis that have outdated EditTools/CharInsert gadgets – gadgets that call the 2006WTE even if you have that editor turned off in your preferences – are finding that their gadget no longer works. There are examples of this gadget being repaired on other wikis, and the German Wikisource's gadget seems to have survived unscathed, but it sounds like Mpaa's got this mostly fixed already. (Congratulations on that!)

Please feel free to ping me if you run into problems that you can't sort out yourselves; although I'm not technical myself, I can try to find folks who are. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It's working again! Thank you, @Mpaa: for this!!!!! --Dick Bos (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

On Wikisource:Proofread_of_the_Month a 404 link[edit]

On page Wikisource:Proofread_of_the_Month, under the section "Works requiring validation", is a link to a tool to "Alternatively randomly have a page selected that requires validation."

Unfortunately that tool has gone AWOL, and the link immediately returns a 404 error.

Wizardry needed methinks. Shenme (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done : fixed —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Creating infoboxes[edit]


Where can I find how I can create new infoboxes?Jeff5102 (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

What sort of infoboxes? Wikisource generally does not use infoboxes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)