Wikisource talk:WikiProject NLS

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

@ShakespeareFan00: @Beeswaxcandle: Hi folks, is there a way of automatically pulling books that have been transcluded into the "List of Works completed" section? Thanks Gweduni (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

NLS / Wikisource collaboration[edit]

Starting this section to discuss longer term opportunities for collaboration between NLS and Wikisource. Next internal meeting is on 29 July 2020, will post notes below. Gweduni (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph separators[edit]

I noticed that @NeilAW: (who I think is part of this project?) has been marking pages a proofread even while leaving the paragraphs indented (rather than separated by blank linkes, as is our house style). This is not recommended, and before I realized this was part of a larger project, I got in a bit of an edit war over it. We should discuss this here, and get it more generally resolved! JesseW (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gweduni: I notice the NLS contributor in question also does not appear to have engaged in any discussion regarding this issue on any talk page, despite messages left on their talk page and the ping above. Has the NLS project not discussed internally the importance of discussions, collaborative editing, and consensus-seeking on the Wikimedia projects? For any contributor, talk page discussions should be the first instinct on any hint of disagreement or difference of opinion.
As a wholly volunteer-driven project where contributors are anonymous (i.e. credentials have no social significance, there is no central authority or organisational structure to mediate interactions), this is deeply ingrained in the culture here, and failure to account for that is exceedingly likely to lead to culture collisions. We're talking plopping down a bag of greasy fish and chips in the Special Collections reading room and loudly demanding of the white-glove archivist to see the NLS First Folio, and be quick about it laddie-levels of clashing here! Not engaging in talk page discussions and undoing other contributors changes is the wiki-equivalent of a situation that starts with someone uttering a phrase containing "ye wee shite" and ends with bloody noses all around.
Imparting all the weird quirks of wiki culture to all the NLS contributors overnight isn't feasible, of course, but the imperative to discuss and seek consensus and the prohibition (in the social sense, not the legal sense) against undoing others' changes without discussion is probably sufficiently critical to be worth addressing specifically.
If not all NLS contributors are comfortable doing that in one-to-one discussions on their talk pages then we at least need to work out some stock answer delegating the issue to your more wiki-savvy people in some central place (such as here). Mostly the community here are a friendly and helpful lot, but not everyone is always able to be diplomatic in the face of perceived provocation. I would rather not have to step in to mediate between a poor NLS employee horrified at the behaviour of these strange Internet people and a community member whose cultural expectations tell them the NLS just insulted their mother (or another suitably colourful metaphor). --Xover (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I totally get your point and with hindsight we should have put more time into training staff in the etiquette of talk pages and comms (I love your metaphors by the way). We did a little bit on it at the start but now need to do a refresher. To be honest, for a lot of staff even the act of editing a page is quite a big technical jump, so talk pages, tildes etc would blow minds. I'll discuss with colleague at our next community meet up (end of the month) and will suggest running a refresher for all editors Gweduni (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, jumping into the wiki can be quite a deep and cold shock, indeed. Glad you are working on it (and thanks again for helping to organize all this excellent additional material into Wikisource!) - JesseW (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Please mark proofread Index pages with {index transcluded} template[edit]

Before they are transcluded, put {{index transcluded|no}}, then when they have been transcluded, update that to {{index transcluded|yes}}. It looks like there are currently 47 Index pages that need this done. If you do this, it will save the effort of other Wikisource users from having to come along later and add it. Thanks! JesseW (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, will ask one of the team to pick this up - thanks Gweduni (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Wonderful! The backlog has been dealt with, but having that step done by the team going forward will be nice. JesseW (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This is amazing[edit]

So much great stuff being added here, thanks to all involved! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

NLS input is requested at WS:PD#Adventures of Jack Okham & Tom Splicewell (1)[edit]

@LilacRoses, @Gweduni, @Chime Hours: Pinging recently active NLS folk here.

Your input is requested in the discussion at WS:PD#Adventures of Jack Okham & Tom Splicewell (1). A contributor has proposed that the wikipage Adventures of Jack Okham & Tom Splicewell (1) be deleted because it is a transcription of a different copy of the same edition of the work as Adventures of Jack Okham & Tom Splicewell (2), and the latter is of better technical quality. While we're happy to host multiple editions of the same work, we usually do not host multiple copies of the same edition. If this is a First Folio-type situation where the differences between copies is significant and subject to research then please do present that argument in the discussion.

The discussion will remain open for a minimum of one week, but there is no particular upper limit if there is ongoing discussion or a community member has requested more time (for whatever reason). For example, since these were both transcribed as part of WikiProject NLS, I imagine it may in some circumstance be necessary to wait for the next monthly meeting to gather the necessary input. In such cases please make sure to make a note of what's going on in the deletion discussion and we can adapt timing etc. to make it work for you.

Note that this notification was previously posted on Annalang13's user talk page. --Xover (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply. There have been staff changes within the Digitisation department at NLS recently hence the delay. When I viewed the page you linked to above, WS:PD#Adventures of Jack Okham & Tom Splicewell (1), I don't see mention of the Okham/Splicewell work. I understand that Adventures of Jack Okham & Tom Splicewell (1) has been deleted (as the link does not exist), correct? No issues on our end, just wishing to confirm. --Chime Hours (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Chime Hours: Thanks for following up. It referred to this discussion (now archived), and LilacRoses replied there. Mostly I just wanted to make you aware of the issue, both because you have better familiarity with the work and any non-obvious factors at play, and so that we could try to figure something out if the duplication was deliberate. In any case, yes, one copy has been deleted and the other renamed accordingly, and the reason is that we do not host multiple copies of the same work unless they are different editions. Different printings of the same edition are theoretically eligible for hosting, but I can't think of a single instance where we actually have that. --Xover (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: Thank you for the confirmation. --Chime Hours (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

New project contact point[edit]

Hi @ShakespeareFan00: @Beeswaxcandle: @Billinghurst: @Xover:

Just to let you know that I have now moved to the University of Edinburgh as the Digitisation and Digital Engagement Manager and will no longer be involved in this project. From now on, please contact @LilacRoses: and @Tamheaney: for questions / updates. Hoping to explore Wiki projects more at the University, so will touch base again before we get started.

Thanks for all your help over the last 6 months! Gweduni (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gweduni: Thanks for letting us know, and good luck in your new job!
@LilacRoses and Tamheaney: please do not hesitate to let us know if you need assistance. --Xover (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
@Gweduni: Best of luck in your new position, what a great opportunity. Thanks for your efforts, your consideration of us, and it seems that we have made some positive impression on you. Really glad that you were able to find a place in our community.

To others remaining, we are here to assist. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Xover:, @Billinghurst: Thank you for your continued support! LilacRoses (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Xover:, @Billinghurst: Thanks again! You guys are doing an amazing job :) Gweduni (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00:, @Beeswaxcandle:, @Billinghurst:, @Xover:, @Inductiveload:. Hi, just to inform you that Chime Hours (talkcontribs) is currently in the role previously held by Gweduni at NLS, so if you could also please contact her with any issues, that would be very much appreciated. Thanks for your continued support! LilacRoses (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@LilacRoses: (and CC Chime Hours) Thanks for keeping us in the loop! --Xover (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


This was raised previously here: - User_talk:Gweduni#File:Archaeologia_Britannica.pdf but it would be nice to get a definitive view as to the license on this and related works being changed, if feasible, so that other works that were provided to Internet Archive could also be imported to Commons with a view to transcription efforts here on Wikisource.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@LilacRoses: and @Tamheaney: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @ShakespeareFan00:, @Inductiveload:, @Xover:. As I do not have enough knowledge on the matter discussed here, I have looked into this for you. This is from the Library's Rights and Information Manager:

While clarifying that I am not a lawyer, it remains a matter of debate in the UK as to whether and when faithful digitisations of existing works attract fresh copyright protection (ie copyright protection in the new digital image). Whether 'correct' or not, it is common practice for copyright notices and licences to be applied to digitisations in the UK. As mentioned in the discussion, this comes down to whether the digital image qualifies for copyright protection, namely whether the digital image is original. One correspondent on the discussion forum quotes from the IPO's 2015 Copyright notice: 'Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work.'. It is worth noting that (1) this is guidance, not legislation or case law and (2) the guidance is not definitive ('unlikely', 'generally be minimal scope', etc.) - there is every chance, even under this guidance, that at least certain digitisations of existing works may qualify for copyright protection.

The Library's approach to re-use rights in our digitisation has evolved over the years as we have worked to develop a more open approach. It has not been our policy for several years to apply a CC BY-NC-SA 2.5 licence to digitisations. Our most recent policy has been to apply a CC BY 4.0 licence to digitisations, unless we are unable to do so, for example due to third party copyright. We made this change to make our collections more open. However, that position still means we assert copyright in the digital images.

We are in the process of developing and implementing a new policy position, which is to not assert fresh copyright protection (whether it exists or not, see discussion above) in faithful digitisations of two-dimensional works. Instead we will use rights statements to state the copyright status of the underlying work depicted. We are still in the process of undertaking the background work necessary to implement this policy. However, once in place this policy will see us, for example, apply a Public Domain Mark to digitisations of works known to be in the public domain, instead of a CC licence.

It is taking us time to implement this policy because it is not a straightforward process. This is because we have digitised a wide range of works over many years, with various partners. Collections may contain works by many different people and indeed individual works often contain different individual copyright works. Many works may be definitively out-of-copyright, but many works may be less clear or may be subject to other restrictions on re-use, for example by virtue of digitisation agreements. Therefore, we are working to apply rights statements to these collections that reflect the copyright status of the underlying work as best as possible as well as any non-copyright re-use or access restrictions. For example, in some cases we will apply a 'Copyright Undetermined' ( statement or 'No Known Copyright' ( statement rather than a simple Public Domain Mark.

In general, we would ask information users to respect and follow the copyright information provided with digitisations as closely as possible, although anyone is welcome to query specifics directly with the Library (

LilacRoses (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@LilacRoses: Thank you so much for following up on this!
Would it be possible to get a statement to the effect that We [will] not assert fresh copyright protection … in faithful digitisations of two-dimensional works. [We intend to] apply a Public Domain Mark to digitisations of works known to be in the public domain …. and that the statement applies retroactively (to the old CC BY-NC-SA 2.5-licensed scans)?
We have good systems and policies for dealing with original copyrights and all the other issues that make this complicated for GLAMs: it's the independent copyright asserted by the NLS in the scan that is making this complicated on our end.
The Archaeologia Britannica scan linked above is an apposite example: it was published in 1707 and its author died in 1709, so it is unquestionably in the public domain all over the world, but because the NLS has asserted an independent copyright in the scan and a CC BY-NC-SA 2.5 license we are hesitant to reuse it. A statement along the lines I propose above would eliminate that issue and let normal copyright assessments for the original work function as intended. --Xover (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chime Hours: I've noted the updated licensing on the Digital Gallery at NLS, but the issue Xover raises, should ideally be resolved. If the license change on the NLS digital gallery files, can also be applied to materials uploaded by the NLS to Internet Archive ( assuming that they are not still subject to third party copyrights), then it would be appreciated if this could be formally confirmed to Wikimedia Commons. Of course providing good quality versions of the files uploaded to IA, to Commons as well would as course be an excellent idea ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Index:The Blythesome Bridal, Bonny Katharine Ogie, Guardian Angels,Britannia Rules the Waves, Flower of Yarrow.pdf[edit]

Hi, bit of mystery this one. No obvious publication location, but it's within the date ranges of some of the other Chapbooks you had been uploading, Any suggestions? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


Noting this here as the NLS holds a much more extensive Bartholamew archive. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

File:The gazetteer of Scotland. (With plates and maps.) (Vol 1 of 2) (Chambers, 1838) (IA gazetteerofscov11838cham).pdf[edit]

Essentially a license check request. This seems to have come via the NLS efforts with the Internet Archive previously. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


@Carrierudd, @Penarka: The Index:(I)nterlocutor.pdf has unfortunately not been formatted sufficiently to merit "Proofread" or "Validated" status. For example the title page should be formatted with text sizes and centered text. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Formatting and proofreading[edit]

'To a Haggis', Robert Burns, Edinburgh Edition 1787.jpg

Hi, everyone, happy Burns Night! Congrats on the continued work.

I have a few pointers on the formatting and proofreading of some the NLS works that I've noticed why scraping up works for Category:Ready for export:

  • Pages should not be marked Proofread until the formatting is at least functional complete. This includes:
    • Images (if missing, the page should be marked Problematic and utilise {{missing image}})
    • Poem formatting
    • Removal of {{running header}}s (or {{center}} where it is single section page numbering) to the header field
    • Centering and a best-effort-basis sizing of text, especially on title pages
  • --- is not a substitute for {{rule}} (you can specify a length with, e.g., {{rule|5em}})
  • -- is not a substitute for "—" (unless so printed)
  • {{custom rule}} is handy and isn't as complicated as it looks
  • Please avoid using <big> and <center>; use {{larger}} and {{center}}.
  • {{smallcaps}} only works if you case the word correctly: {{sc|SMALLCAPS}}SMALLCAPS, but {{sc|SmallCaps}}SmallCaps
  • {{all small caps}} can be used if you want the slightly "squished" styling: {{asc|ALL SMALL CAPS}}ALL SMALL CAPS, vs. {{smaller|ALL SMALL CAPS}}ALL SMALL CAPS
    • {{sc|edinburgh}} is not a substitute for {{smaller|EDINBURGH}} or {{all small caps|EDINBURGH}}. Only the former copy-pastes and appears in CSS-incapable devices (like many assistive devices) capitalised.
  • Please place a {{page break}} between pages that should have them (generally the title page and following pages). This helps for e-book formatting, otherwise the following content gets squished onto a page along with the title content. Otherwise, the NLS works generally export extremely well!

If unsure that a page is "done", it is far preferable to leave it Not Proofread than advance to Proofread prematurely, as indexes marked as "Proofread" drop off the "To be Proofread" backlog.

If anyone has any questions at all, please always feel free to {{ping}} me directly, or ask on my talk page. Especially let me know if documentation is confusing or lacking. Keep up the amazing work and Sláinte Mhath! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 11:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Vague dates—how to better handle[edit]

Hi to all.

When a date is vague there are a couple of better ways to handle these than the current methodology which is creating some maintenance.

  • Where date is circa
    We have a c abbreviation that means the use is year = c/YYYY as single year. This prepends c and categorises to the year.
  • Where the date is a larger variable, or a group of year
    Here we would use override_year = some free text years and this does not categorise. We would encourage consideration to whether you manually add something like [[Category:yyyys works]] as we can add years by decades at the base of the work.

Thanks. Happy to elucidate further as required. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Scans for proofreading (at high res in edit mode of Page: namespace?)[edit]

Recently support was added via a specific script for grabbing hi-res scans from sites which had an API which supported access to hi-res scans directly, and these scans were at higher resolution to those in upload Djvu or PDF. (The script isn't foolproof, though)

The script concerned and the changes are here:

As the NLS has ongoing projects on Wikisource, I felt it would be worthwhile if the script concerned was in time also able to assist those ongoing projects by being able to utilize Hi-res scans in the edit mode for Page: namespace, with the local PDF as a fallback.

With IA and Hathi Trust sourced works, an identifer can be used to figure out how to get hi-res scans directly from the various sites. It wasn't clear how this could be done for NLS Digital Gallery items (like the Chapboks.). Is there a straightforward URL schema that could be implemented in the relevant script? @Inductiveload: as developer of the script.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This can certainly be done through the NLS API, but it needs to parse the work's manifest to locate the high res files. I haven't checked yet, but depending on the CORS header, that might need a little toolserver service. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)