Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2011-05

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

Announcements

Wikitech discusses sister project

As a heads-up, there is a discussion occurring on the WIKITECH-L mailing list archives where they are discussing sister projects, aka anything NOT wikipedia, which includes us. While there is some tech talk there, there is also some interesting discussion as they talk about ideas, while it isn't for everyone, those who interested in some of the future thinking might want to peruse, and if something is of particular interest start a discussion here, or join in at the mailing list. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I too read that thread. Mostly interesting! I read with enthusiasm the idea of a "wiki for js gadgets" and I'll add to that wiki templates too; and perhaps some shared css. Any of you tried interproject transclusion by Iwpage? If you did, you'd note the necessity of some common, shared interproject templates. --Alex brollo (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: transclusion checker

MZMcBride (talk • contribs) has generously given us some time and built a tool that enables us to enter an Index: page, and to have it output lists of Page: namespace pages that are that are transcluded or not. This allows a quick check for pages (per work) that may have been missed in transclusion, or a quicker means to identify pages that can (or cannot) be deleted or moved when maintenance work has taken place on a djvu file. I have edited the Index page template to insert a link to the tool for each Index: page. To note that the columns are sortable by clicking on the header. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


Articles of interest and relevance from the web

I often find on the web, articles of interest, relevance, and somewhat related to our work. So, for a long while, I've been toying with the idea of creating this section and post the links. Well, today I took the "plunge" and decided to post the link to the following article in the New York Times for the enjoyment of anyone interested.

The paper maker, from the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/timothy-barrett-papermaker.html?_r=1&hpw
By MARK LEVINE
Retrieved from The New York Times: February 17, 2012

Picture library captures Royal Society's rich history, from the Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/gallery/2012/apr/19/picture-library-royal-society-history?newsfeed=true
Retrieved from the London Guardian: April 19, 2012

New York City image archives now online

This message was also posted on the Commons Village pump, and I want to share this link for those who are interested and don't read the Commons message board. The New York City image archives were placed online recently Enjoy — User talk:Ineuw 18:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Retrieved from the New York Daily News. April 24, 2012.

FDR library image archives online

Many, if not all, of these images can be found on the Commons dispersed by category, but here they are accessible in one gallery. for those who are interested in images of Roosevelt's presidential era, covering 1933 to 1946.. — Ineuw talk 18:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

New Wikimedia Shop feedback/help requested

Hey all,

Some of you may already know that we've opened a shop at http://shop.wikimedia.org to sell Wikimedia Merchandise. We're now entering our "Community Launch" allowing us to hopefully get as much feedback from the community about the store, it's products and everything else involved. For those that are interested we've set up an FAQ/information page, feedback page and design page. We also have a 10% discount up for at least the next 2 weeks (CLAUNCH or 'Wikimedia Community Launch' in the discount box at checkout) and a $10 maximum shipping fee world wide for most orders.

However the big thing I wanted to ask you about was Wikisource gear. Right now everything on there is Wikipedia related but we want to make sure we have merch from all of the projects as well. So far we have a couple things on order:

  • Stickers from all of the projects
  • 1" buttons (or 'badges' ) from all of the projects
  • Are in the design and digital mockup phase of lapel pins for all of the projects to both go independently and as a set. Right now we're getting mockups to see how they look and to see if we want to go with the Pewter look that we have right now for the globe (this new set will have an interlocked v W for the wikipedia piece) or the full color enamel look like This Strike Command pin.

We want to have more though both soon and in the future and I wanted to know what you thought. One of my thoughts for something early on was a series similar to the I Edit Wikipedia shirts (we have two versions right now) on the shop for each project. If we did something like that should we just use Edit or adjust the verb? " I proofread? other ideas for this or other products?. Jalexander (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to see things are finally moving on this front. I first asked for Wikisource merch way back in 2008. Hesperian 05:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I invite people who work on Wikisource's technical infrastructure to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

This is one of several upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing. Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumanah (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Mediawiki upgrade to 1.20wmf1

Wikimedia Foundation hackers have updated the operating application to v. 1.20wmf Special:Version. Please report any identified issues to the general discussion area … #Issues with upgrade to 1.20wmf1 — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

New features in ProofreadPage

The new version of Mediawiki that will be deployed on April 28th 18th (more info) will bring new features to the ProofreadPage: extension. The tag <pages> will get new options in order to improve the method of transclusion for multi-page works (both .djvu & .pdf files) that may have skipped ranges, individual range gaps or trailing pages. The new parameters are:

step
Transclude only one page on n. By example : <pages from=1 to=10 step="2" /> show the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th and 9th pages.
exclude
Don't include following pages. By example : <pages from=1 to=10 exclude="2-5,9" /> show the 1st, 6th, 7th, 8th and 10th pages.
include
Include following pages. By example : <pages include="2-5,9" /> show the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th pages.

We can, of course, use all the attributes on the same tag. By example <pages from=1 to=10 include="31" exclude="2-4" step="2" /> will show 1st, 5th, 7th, 9th and 31st pages. —unsigned comment by Tpt (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC).

We would want to update Help:Proofread also. Jeepday (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


All I heard is "Someone has taken over maintenance of ProofreadPage." Fantastic! Hesperian 01:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad for these changes, notably the exclusion option as it will make transclusion much easier when you have batches of pages that don't need to be included. I'm also so happy someone is still working on this extension!—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Well I took a stab at adding some of the info on using these three (plus the subsequent "sectiononly") parameters to the Help:Proofread page. I urge other folks to review my drafts, fix my spelling and make any other changes / additions to it that I almost certainly have left out. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


I'm puzzled by (at least) one thing. There is a glitch in transclusion that comes up when a page boundary interacts with format, and can be seen in the endnotes of Drake, Francis (1540?-1596) (DNB00): a newline is forced. There is a known but less-than-ideal workaround. I thought for a time this problem/bug had been fixed by the upgrade, but assuming the Francis Drake page isn't showing something cached the problem is still with us. Would someone who understands why the issue arises care to comment? Charles Matthews (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
It looks like you're not getting all the original line feeds, etc., from when the page was first created using its OCR'd text. See the diff view first & now you can see all the errant or forced lines are gone in the mainspace as well.
I found that my edit window width was too narrow and kept making similar oversights thanks to it so I went to the horizontal layout in Page: editing view instead of side-by-side to catch more of these. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Mediawiki upgrade to 1.20wmf2

Wikimedia Foundation hackers will be updating the operating application to v. 1.20wmf2 Special:Version starting April 30th on thru the expected completion date, May 9th (the wikisource family likely to begin to undergo the update(s) some time during May 2nd). Please report any issues likely to materialize as a result of these changes to the general discussion area … #Issues with upgrade to 1.20wmf2 — George Orwell III (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Changes to ProofreadPage expected with 1.20wmf2 upgrade

Hi! New version of ProofreadPage extension is available for testing on test2. List of some changes [expected with the deployment of version 1.20wmf2]:

  • 34732 The scan does not appear on Opera.
  • 35757 Add 'onlysection' parameter to <pages/>.
  • 36070 <pagelist/> should show localized page numbers
  • 36115 Anonymous users cannot change page status
  • 36125 Position of quality buttons should not change
  • 36158 <pages> transclusions allow for infinite loop - This change disables nested <pages> transclusion completely.

If you find any errors please file a bug on bugzilla, so we can fix the issues before the upcoming deployment. Beau (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

This is done now. See mw:MediaWiki 1.20/wmf2 for notes. Thanks Beau for providing the notice! -- RobLa-WMF (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

Add Portal namespace to default search

Just noticed this strange omission. It's pretty mature now, and I don't see any reason why we wouldn't want visitors finding portals when they search for something. Prosody (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Set default Page: namespace header to ON

I would like to propose that we change the default for Page: namespace is to have the header/footer display set to ON (open), and amend the gadget so that it enables those who do not to see it, to enable it to be set to closed. Many are unable to see it, and to find where we poke the header and/or footer detail, hence such detail is either left in the body, or deleted.

This would require simple change to common.js to include 

var proofreadpage_show_headers=true;

and inversion of the gadget to set it to false — billinghurst sDrewth 18:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea.
On a related note, the bug that was introduced with the new MediaWiki version, with the edit toolbar not being visible (in Google Chrome at least) unless My preferences --> Editing --> "Show edit toolbar (requires JavaScript)" is unchecked (ie, turned off), is still present. Chrome's market share is 12–17%, so that represents confusion and crucial missing functionality (including header/footer display) for a sizable percentage of new visitors. Are the developers not aware of this issue? -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal as well. —Spangineer (háblame) 20:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree: this is something users can then easily see for themselves. The pages which don't require a running header or page number are a decided minority. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 20:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Yep. Hesperian 02:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with this, where the headers came from was a problem I found very confusing when I first started out. MichelleG (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC).
This has been proposed several times, but I don't recall a reason to have it closed by default. I close it when I have 'header script', so it doesn't take up space in my browser's window, but this doesn't apply to those who are still familiarising themselves with the editing environment. That the option exists—at Special:Preferences#preftab-8 (Gadgets, not Editing!?)—should be noted in help files when this is done, especially at "tools and scripts". CYGNIS INSIGNIS 10:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. This is something I should have built in the extension's code :-) ThomasV (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Add Top icon snippet to common CSS & Javascript

I would like to propose adding MediaWiki: Snippets: Top Icons to the common CSS and Javascript. This code will allow for top icons that appear inline with the title (as at Wikipedia) rather than at the top of the page just under the title (as is currently the case here). The current situation means that the top icons often overlap with the header template and obscure the next link where it is present.

As a second point, I would also like to propose, if the code is accepted, that the top icons (such as {{featured}}) are changed to a simple image (as on Wikipedia) as this maintains some conformity across Wikimedia. This isn't essential but I think it will make the site easier to understand to most readers who are probably more familiar with Wikipedia than the sister projects.

Back to the code, it only requires two brief pieces to be added, which I have tested with my personal settings with no problems detected so far.

This needs to be added to common.js: 

/**
 * Icons on the top right of the article.
 * See also CSS
 *
 * @source: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Snippets/Top_icons
 * @rev: 2
 */
jQuery( document ).ready( function( $ ) {
        $( '.Top_icon_raw' )
                .removeClass( 'Top_icon_raw' )
                .addClass( 'Top_icon_dynamic' )
                .prependTo( '#firstHeading' );
} );

This needs to be added to common.css: 

/**
 * Icons on the top right of the article.
 * See also JS
 *
 * @source: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Snippets/Top_icons
 * @rev: 2
 */
/* Hide without javascript */
.Top_icon_raw {
        display: none;
}
/* With JavaScript */
.Top_icon_dynamic {
        float: right;
        padding-left: 10px;
        font-size: 50%;
        width: auto !important;
}
.Top_icon_raw p, .Top_icon_dynamic p {
        padding: 0; margin: 0;
}

Full details can be found at MediaWiki. As this change will affect everyone using or reading Wikisource, it needs some consensus before going ahead. (On the other hand, there isn't much code and it will be easy to remove if problems do emerge after implementation.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

DoneI've added the code and changed the top icon templates to match. If there are any errors caused by this, the above code can just be deleted from common.js and common.css (or the templates using it can be reverted if that is the issue). It works on my side; does this work for everyone else? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change the syntax of {{SIC}}

I propose to change the syntax of {{SIC}} so that it does exactly what it already does in Page: namespace only; in main space (i.e. when Page:s are transcluded) it would simply display the corrected word. That way, non-editor readers aren't unnecessarily confronted with misprints in our sources, but simply see the corrected text. Editors of Page:s would still see the text as originally printed, along with the corrected text upon mouseover. What do others think? Angr 08:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree as it is not presenting what is in the book, and means that we are starting to put ourselves into an editorial decision about what the word should be, or that it is even wrong. While I am happy to put SIC indicating what is in the original text, I am not comfortable about enforcing a change. Also to note that not all renditions of SIC have a second positional parameter, some just have the first. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - I think that maintaining what is published is most important. Most of the typos or misspellings are easily discernable, so I don't really see correction as an improvement to the work, as contradictory as that reads as I type it, when we are in fact creating our own editions in doing so. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Author template links

Compare http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Blaise_Pascal with http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Auteur:Blaise_Pascal - notice how en. has a cluttered feeling; "Sister links: Wikipedia, Commons, Gallery, &c"...notice how fr. has a clean -Biography, -Quotes column down the side. :) I propose we change the Author template to resemble the fr. one a bit more in the sense of links to sister projects. Movedcolor (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/wiki/Author%3ABlaise_Pascal?match=fr for a side by side. The issue is that they are all generic links whether there is content there or not, where as ours are dynamic and there should be content at the end of our links. To note whichever namespace you are working within enWS the sister links and positioning is consistent. If we applied that redesign we would not have that consistency across respective namespace headers. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikisource:Portal

I would like to propose that Wikisource:Portal be formally recognized as a policy or guideline (one or the other). It has been in draft form since 2006 with a significant upgrade in Feb 2011 to reflect current expectations. Please indicate your desire to elevate to Policy, Guideline or other disposition. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Policy

policy level with guidance, at this point in time I feel it should be split as it extends from policy to guidance. Policy = principle, guidance = implementation and instruction — billinghurst sDrewth 06:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the guidance elements to Help:Portals for now. The remainder should all be policy. - AdamBMorgan (talk)
  • When I re-wrote this page I intended it to eventually be policy. (It needs to be reviewed by others, of course. Otherwise it's just an essay I made up.) I've amended the page as described above. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Policy (mostly) The purpose of the namespace is definitely policy, and the top-level classification schema could be counted too. I'm unsure the explicit "there are five levels" belongs in policy, as that could easily stretch over time for large portals. Perhaps this could be moved to the help page to keep the policy light? Everything else, I would call policy-level expectations of how it is done correctly. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 06:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    I've amended the Wikisource:Portal. Is this better? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Policy or Guideline, It is a given that Portals are the most appropriate way to provide entrance to group of items in a subject, and it has been clear that WS supports this as the preferred method (over categories). Jeepday (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Guideline

Other

  • I'm not too sure what making this a policy would do. I view policies as prescriptive documents telling readers some of the basic mores of this site which must be followed. Some pertain to users, some to admins, some to bureaucrats, etc. But they express clear behavior for some group of users. (E.g., our inclusion policy, blocking policy). I don't get that kind of vibe with this document. A document about portals (especially with the way in which it is written currently) seems like it would be best as a general process page: it gives background information, explains what the definition of a portal is (and so what things go into it). I'd support making it a process page, but not a policy.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to modify the {{fsx}} template

Currently, this template is supposed to adjust the line heights of various font sizes, but it has no visual effect on the line height when font sizes are less than 100%.

I prepared samples with the current fsx template where the line height is set to 1.5em, and my proposed modifications based on the percentage of the 100% font size being equal to 140% line height.

The samples are here and the modifications are controlled from two Sandboxes: for 120% line height of font size of 93%-88% and for 115% line height of font size of 87%-83%, knowing that there is no difference in the font size of Arial from 93% to 88%, and from 87% to 83%.

It should be mentioned that experiments were also made with 'em' changes of 1.3em for the 90% and 1.25em for the 85% font size ranges.

If the community agrees to the change, it can be implemented with a series of 'if' statements - something that needs to be done by someone who knows programming.

Risking excessive verbosity - my reason for asking for this modification is that I use fsx 85% for thousands of PSM image captions, many of which are several lines long and they look poor and amateurish. Without line height adjustment, the 90% font size is indistinguishable from the 100% as can be seen in these poems. — Ineuw talk 05:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S: Here is a perfect example of the description's current line height. — Ineuw talk 05:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Here is a perfect example of the description's corrected line height by the application of the new template.— Ineuw talk 04:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

BOT approval requests

PSM maintenance in Page:ns

Request to operate with User:MpaaBot in Page:ns on PSM in order to:

  1. standardize font sizes to 85% and apply the new template {{fs85}}. This template modifies the line-height to 1.1em for image descriptions.
  2. standardize font sizes for blocks of text to 90% and apply the new template {{fs90}}. This template modifies the line-height to 1.2em for blocks of text.

Bot will be semi-automated, launched in batches manually via python and supervised.
Expected number of pages affected: 8k.--Mpaa (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Help

Other discussions

Customizing Hesperian's cleanup() gadget with work-specific js variables: it.source way

We are testing and using into it.source some interesting "automation tools", a promising idea is to build and load structured, book-specific js variables that tools can use for current works. Here an example: 

datiPagine={
'Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu':{
                  'delta':28,
                  'pari':'{{running header|#pag|\'\'HORSE-SHOES AND HORSE-SHOEING.\'\'|}}',
                  'dispari':'{{running header||\'\'\'\'|#pag}}'
                  },
// other similar elements….
}

Working into a specific page, a js script can read the variable collection, an if it founds data about the running page such a script "knows" the original number of the page, the RunningHeader code, and (adding more elements) the type of the book (prose, poem…), some common, but specific, OCR mistakes….. and so on.

When a general shared "associative array" lives into the page, an use can add other, personal variables using its personal comon.js or vector.js.

I posted the code here into my vector.js and I really use a "almost fully automated RunningHeader regex script" while I edit Index:Horse shoes and horse shoeing.djvu. --Alex brollo (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex. I assume that this works only on pages about to be created. Am I correct?— Ineuw talk 08:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it runs alwais! We use this routine a lot to customize our "postOCR routine" (a new name for Inductiveload's cleanup(), deeply modified), to automatize RunningHeader, and to other routines. Such data are very useful from the first to the last step of proofreading, and my feel is that other useful data will be added. In the meantime, we added some more variables; this is the complete structure for a specific work:
'Le confessioni di un ottuagenario I.djvu':{
                  'delta':27,
                  'pari':'{{RigaIntestazione|#pag|{{Sc|le confessioni d’un ottuagenario.}}|}}',
                  'dispari':'{{RigaIntestazione||{{Sc|capitolo secondo.}}|#pag}}',
                  'tipo':'prosa',
                  'regex':"é|è||\\*|'||air |all'|| r |l'||deir |dell'||eh'|ch'"
                  },
The last row is interesting; it's a list of specific regex substitutions for the work, which will be applied to that work only adding much power to general cleanup routine.--Alex brollo (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Attribution, nu? I believe that credit for the cleanup() script goes to Hesperian. Like the rest of this .js kit, if you don't use it already, you should! I strongly recommend the title(), smallcaps(), author(), header (), and cleanup() scripts; these have been developed and refined for about a year now. Having makeref() is great for the workflow too, for those interested in productivity ... CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And which I tried to gadgetise (to create a word) at an earlier point, though not trying to hard as Pathoschild said that he was rewriting regex, so I put it on hold. Billinghurst (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Cygnis for suggestions, but consider that such tools are deeply project-specific, and I'm developing the ideas into it.source (here my contributions are very few!), and all the stuff of main templates, quality, orthographic rules, guidelines for style are deeply different there. It.source is very complex in many details (i.e. consider verses numeration, and the mostly complex conversion of dactilographic into tipographic apostrophes; the existence of many different Header templates with different sets of parameters!); perhaps too much complex, I like so much en.source plain, simple approach, but biodiversity is the key of evolution. Perhaps some of you could be interested into it:Utente:Alex_brollo/regextool.js, it's a greatly simplified (and fixed for some vector-specific formatting issues) version if Pathoschild's central regextool.js script; I only saved the "engine" who manipulates function list. I apologyze for wrong attribution of cleanup(). :-( --Alex brollo (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Cygnis is right; I'll claim authorship of this; not just the cleanup() idea and code, but the work-specific stuff too. The snippet above is uncannily similar to my work-specific formats code in User:Hesperian/works.js, which I first implemented on 18 August last year.[1] I don't know how it has made its way across to it.wikisource and then back here again, and I don't really care. I'm happy to see it being used. But I'd still like to claim credit for it, rather than seeing it presented as "an idea from it.source". I appreciate Cygnis pointing that out. Hesperian 06:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm extremely confused and I apologyze again. Neverthetess, the "idea form it.source" consists only into the "cleanup costumization" by a set of js variables, so - I hope that I'd not add another mistake to fix a previos one - I changed the title of this talk. Sorry for late reply, but I was harly working into it.source, just to finish some work I began, and now I'm ready to come here again to go ahead with Horse shoes and horse shoeing… . I'll be much more careful and much less bold in future, believe me. Alex brollo (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Hesperian, now I took a look to yours works.js page. I never read it before, nor I had no knowledge of such an idea, nor I found it used, and my script comes simply from js translation of previous python bot (Alebot) scripts running into it.source. Please take a look to js code, I'll been very surprised if you'll find any resemblance, simply because I thought it by myself from scratch; on the contrary, you'll find needed credit to Pathoschild for regextool engine. But yes! you can say that I re-discovered the wheel. So, this is simply a smart case of "evolutionary convergence into a complex system", just as bats and birds have both "discovered" how to fly. Please take a look at it:MediaWiki:Gadget-RegexMenuFramework.js and tell me if you'll find any similarity. Please consider that scripts are nothing more that a (running) exercise of a js beginner.  :-( ~~

Toolbar code for Vector

Following another lead, I found the instructions in how to add custom buttons for the vector toolbar, it is at mw:Snippets/Custom_buttons_in_the_toolbar. I haven't played with it (and still using monobook), however, if others want to try be at it. We will need to update our instructions at Wikisource:Tools and scripts Billinghurst (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Meta-Wiki reports that this link/page doesn’t exist.— Ineuw talk 15:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Fixed above. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, got it.— Ineuw talk 00:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikisource as a reference top-icon

I've been working with the new wikiproject Wikisource:WikiProject References to Wikisource started by Prosody, and I am proposing adding top icon in a similar vein as the featured icon. I think that having our work used as references reflect the growing trust of the site; even though we are a wiki which is by definition editable by anyone, what we host is reliable and in some cases preferred over any other of the many virtual libraries. This is an achievement and should be valued and promoted. Also, I think that these works should be maintained, meaning that: even though the version which was referenced may not be the version or state which the work is in currently, that after reviewing and updating (especially the older entries) we should lock it so it is only editable by registered users. AdamBMorgan has created a template to standardize works listed in Wikisource:References to Wikisource; which is linked per work by the discussion page template Template: Referenced, which can be linked from the workspace by, IMO, an unobtrusive icon in the top right corner. I would like to move this template into the mainspace, but would like some support; please see, for an example: Human Immortality: Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine. - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

With regard to protection, where the works are in the Page namespace the protection in the main namespace is not particularly relevant and protecting all the pages in the Page namespace seems of less value, and not the easiest task for a large number of pages. Our patrolling seems to capture many of the issues around vandalism. What more were you looking to achieve, and what issues do you see at the moment?

With regard to a tag on the page, what is the goal and the outcome of moving it to the main namespace, it isn't evident and the marker is transitory? Linking to the talk page through the template seems ideal as it adds the ability for context and commentary. It would seem more relevant to add a link from the main namespace through to the article akin to use of {{edition}}.

Re PotM, I have no idea to what you are referring or trying to adduce. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

On PotM, I meant that sometimes I've seen PotM's finish early, and smaller works are selected until the next months' larger work goes up. I was hoping, given the moderate importance of these works, so inject them if possible into the bonus PotM for validation or proofreading; I have no idea where or how that gets selected though, but I think it would certainly be good for us. - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
When we have completed the PotM, we either drop into Wikisource:Proofread of the Month/little works or Wikisource:Proofread of the Month/validation works depending on how many days we have left, the choice available, discussion on the project, etc. All of these works have scans against which to validate, and anyone is welcome to add works to either list according to the in situ guidance. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
On Top Icons: A top icon isn't essential to the project but it is a simple and effective way to communicate some of the status of a page (WP uses both featured and good icons). You could think of an external citation as a third party statement of quality, which could be represented in some way.
Incidentally, does anyone know if we can steal/use Wikipedia's style sheets? I think that's how they get their icons to sit along the title bar. If not for this icon, then for {{featured}}, which appears to me as overlapping with the header (which is awkward if the next field is being used).
I looked at that sometime back and it only happens under dynamic layouts - which is part of the issue with using a 3rd div wrapper to hold header & content rather just content. Stuff like this (as well headers on pages using dynamic layouts, apparently) should go in the div container that holds things like the colored progress bar or the base page "back" link on sub-pages. The way it is now is the same story as the notes field is developing -- too many divs running the risk of conflicting with each other eventually all under one container (though that is still html table based). — George Orwell III (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
On Protection: Semi-protection only stops IP's editing and I'm going to assume IP users are more likely to not realise that the content is being transcluded in from another set of pages. It would provide a very minimum level of security for the text and might increase the perceived reliability from the point of view of a casual reader arriving after seeing the text in a citation or bibliography elsewhere. (Although I don't think being cited alone should warrant protection; it needs to be validated/100% too. Of course, according to the protection policy they really should be {{locked}} in this case anyway - another top icon.)
Neither is absolutely necessary but they could help. - AdamBMorgan 18:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
We might consider the second batch of protection(s) - prevent non-admins from moving such pages to preserve page titles ( and all the linkage here and elsewhere in the process ). — George Orwell III (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking that too; that we should protect the title at least, with being cited it is important that someone checking on the reference here be linked to the work regardless of subsequent DAB's or title correction; of course if they did not cite the specific revision as I have seen done. About the perceived level of security, that is what we do now for featured, right? Whether it becomes locked or something lesser (I personally had only a protection against non-registered users in mind), it must in some way maintain integrity. - Theornamentalist 20:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
If we are going to start protecting so many pages we just need to be aware that there is a major effect upon bots. We only have one bot that is admin rated, so as/if we run upgrades then we have to fiddle with permissions. or run the bot from a non-bot account. I have come across this running portal and year fixes recently. Obviously no effect in the page namespace. So prevent move would work, (again it hasn't been a problem) and usually it is for disambiguation reasons. We have not had a major vandalism problem, and it has seemed beneficial leaving the pages without protection, so I am not convinced of the need to protect most pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
FWIW {{featured}}{{locked}} fight rather than play nicely with each other here
I was hoping to use another icon to sit atop the page, and not to be placed side by side. Imagine it looking like Human Immortality: Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine, and when selected to edit, seeing an auto-confirmed protection or full. As far as the progression of locking these works, I do not mind doing them manually as we work on bringing them up to current standards and validating them; so far only The Blindmen and the Elephant has been page-linked and fully validated, and Prosidy has been validating Human Immortality. - Theornamentalist 01:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

How about this icon? I think it communicates the locked feature. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Two absolute positions (or "poor" CSS compliance?) equals one icon directly on top of the other under some browsers -- and that is all I see here (again). — George Orwell III (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, that was intentional; before I bothered creating and uploading an image. Kind of like, "this work used in a publication is locked." But I doubt it's that clear off the bat. - Theornamentalist (talk)
Portions of a padlock showing and portions of what I assume is a book also showing was intentional? If the intent was to float a transparent-background padlock over the book (making it in effect the background instead), then something is still not quite right. — George Orwell III (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm that's odd, it works for me in Chrome and IE. I would make a regular image if this is preferred, although the more I look, the more like the original; the stack of books used in the example. I want to move this into Template space, we have been working hard and have a few works that have been validated. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't bother on my account - its probably just me anyway. FWIW, I mentioned earlier that the overall "problem" with this is not so much with the icons or the approach taken but the div wrapper the output falls under when applied to page with dynamic layouts. I just checked and your sandbox/icon bounces into the green header-space just like the Featured and Lock templates do. — George Orwell III (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Damn. I'll work on it over the next few days I think; thanks for the feedback. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I made another example for this at Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; I apologize, since this is now two tests in Mainspace. This just completely avoids sitting atop the title line and/or interfering with the header or pushing it down. It falls in-line with our other sister links, media, etc. in the notes field. It is not as showcased, but I think it looks nice there.

In a related matter, and with the featured icon overlapping into the header, maybe we can move the featured icon into the notes field? - Theornamentalist (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd much rather recover the option we once had of being able to universally utilize that screen space, if the need arises, just as every other sister-foundation seems to be able to do without too much effort being applied or such turd-wrangling taking place. — George Orwell III (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
What? Ha, I honestly can't tell what you are saying; is it that the notes field wrangles turds like plain sister? - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I suppose in using the original one (as seen in Human Immortality: Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine), we would have the option of working on using the top space and not have to move it out of the notes field if/when achieving it. I do want to note that most sister sites use a banner for featured. - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for not being more clear - I meant the icon bounce from max X & Y top-right corner to the header under Dynamic Layouts, not the Notes field. — George Orwell III (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The featured icon suffers from the Dynamic layouts too; until this issue gets resolved for both, which type of icon and placement do you prefer? - Theornamentalist (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
To be frank, under these circumstances it makes no difference to me where it is ultimately placed nor which "icon" is eventually used and so on - in my mind it will always be not where it is expected to be. I can live without the 'Locked' banner (that obvious reality can be explained in detail for the extremely thick-headed during "edit" mode when they attempt to edit the protected page), but I don't think the application of other banners and now 'Referenced' should have be so innconsistent with the accepted foundation-wide practice for the sake of some pushed default to function in the first place. — George Orwell III (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that that location is going to work e.g.. Whilst I am still not convinced that it is necessary and actually gives value beyond another flag, something that may be worth considering is the right hand of the ribboned area that shows the Proofread status. The ribbon only ever takes up a small proportion on the left hand side, and leaves the right clear, similarly it is the same channel used for identifying the layer of the subpages. It may be a more appropriate location for all the paraphenalia that we look to insert. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Back on the 5th, I wrote, ... Stuff like this (as well headers on pages using dynamic layouts, apparently) should go in the div container that holds things like the colored progress bar or the basepage "back" link on sub-pages ..., which is a div-child wrapper to the main Global wrapper. It has an an id= of contentSub (capital 'S'). I haven't figured out how to get the templates to load there and be a parent rather than a child to the DL's text-container. — George Orwell III (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
It is all voodoo to me and at the sheer mention of HTML I just get early onset old-timers. smiley I am a rampant advocate for the KISS principle, and those who understand can work out those bits. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmmmm... let's see: hit edit -> apply template -> save edit. Yessem; the old way met that principle. — George Orwell III (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Re: Billinghurst; In the example you gave, I do not see any problem caused by having a lengthy "next" field and the use of the icon as-is. What were you trying to show? I've looked in Chrome and IE. As far as the need, I agree actually, it is un-necessary, but it can also say some things just as our featured icon can. In the proposed template and process it could show:
  1. that even as a wiki-we are reliable enough to cite.
  2. en.ws is proud of this work -->showcasing.
  3. it is protected (to some degree) to so that it is stable.
  4. we are the preferred online library used in citations over the many other online library.

I am like Billinghurst, hmtl basics are all that I'm capable of. However, it would seem that the proofread status and back links are not acessible to write in in the main space, but maybe it has to be written in our mediawiki to potentially show up for all cases, but only "turn on" and appear as an icon if a main space entry has a template; kind of like the proofread status only "turns on" for works that transclude Pages. - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

While the backlink for sub-pages is universal, the proofreading progress bar is only on dynamic layout pages. This makes me believe its a javascript thing and that's above my pay grade as well. Still, somebody should be able to fix this. All that is needed is the will to follow it through. — George Orwell III (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
After spending some time with Google, I think I might know how to do this. However, this does involve making global changes to fundamental parts of Wikisource, so "I think I might" might not good enough. I have tested it with my personal CSS (which I only found out existed while googling) and it seems to work with no horrible errors (so far). If anyone wants to test this themselves, you will need to open your preferences and mw:Snippets/Top icons. In preferences, in the appearance tab, look at the bottom of the skin section; there should be links for "Custom CSS" and "Custom JavaScript". Copy the stylesheet code from the MediaWiki page into Custom CSS and copy the javascript code from the MediaWiki page into Custom JavaScript. Once you have saved both, open a sandbox and enter this: 
<div class="Top_icon_raw">[[File:Cscr-featured.svg|14px|alt=Featured article]]</div>
(I stole the code from Wikipedia's featured article template). That should put a little star at the top right of your screen. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. Does the icon/banner also stay in the top-right corner on pages using dynamic layouts (transcluded using <pages>) with the scheme in place? — George Orwell III (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I've done a few tests with no problems. The featured star and the validation ribbon do not appear to conflict. I did a few tests without saving on texts such as The Velveteen Rabbit and a few of the current new texts - no problems. There was no problem in my sandbox, although the ribbon doesn't appear in Userspace, and I made one live test to see if saving & mainspace made a difference - no problems there either. (NB: Those links will only work if you've installed the css and javascript.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, the Top icon you gave did not work for me; I installed, ref'ed, and nothing; eitherway, I've moved something to Template: space; pending a change in the WS:Common for featured, I imagine this can get revamped. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Adam, it looks great. I look forward to hopefully seeing both this and the featured icons moved into that area soon. As it has been discussed, the next thing to address is protection. Personally, I would like to see an auto-confirmed protection, and use of the cascading option for works like Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • There is some discussion of 'how' to wrangle this "References to Wikisource" icon, but none regarding 'why?'
  • I see a pitfall to this new idea: A book or website mentions the wikisource transcript, that's great and will probably happen more as the integrity of the site is improved, but it doesn't place an "obligation" for us to place a link back to that work in a list, or on the talk, or give an icon at the very top of the page to advertise that. We give citations and urls for the source of our transcript, but other forms of external references and links have been deprecated for a long time, for good reasons. This goes beyond the click-bait problem, identified elsewhere, it doesn't take much imagination to see how this can be exploited for commercial purposes.
    I mentioned this is already the case with at least one of works previously in place prior to any Project being created with what unfortunately seemed like little regard for this potential pitfall being exploited even further being expressed. — George Orwell III (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • We have a header that contains a brief summary of a work's bibliographic data, with some links for navigating within that work. If there is something to say about that work, the discussion tab is blue. We don't need to make space above the header, it has a notes field; a linked phrase, perhaps with an icon, can be added to that. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We are first and foremost a wiki—a site assembling an assumedly rag-tag amateurs with no authority on anything; even something trivial like formatting. Our work does not get published, and there is no liability on our parts for producing factual information. The very fact that we get referenced in a published work is impressive. An author takes a rish in doing so; one which exemplifies the growing trust in our community to do decent work in digitizing, transcribing and formatting.

To summarize and to answer "Why?"—my reasoning and proposed path to take is as follows:

  1. Author chooses to cite en.ws
    1. Even as a wiki-we are reliable and trusted enough to cite
    2. Our library is preferred over PG, IA, Gbooks, etc.
  2. Initiates potentially rechecking and working on text.
    1. Find scan (if not done)
    2. Proofread and Validate the work to ensure that it is at its best.
  3. Because it has been cited, Protect work for something like auto-confirmed only.
    1. Someone who reads book decides to check reference
      1. Finds a stable, validated and protected work.
  4. In filling this process, we are proud that we are cited and adding a little cement into our perceived legitimacy, and we want to showcase this work -> Icon; or something.

Regarding exploitation, over at en.wp, a site that sees more traffic in an instant then we probably do all month, they use an identical template to {{referenced}}, so it would appear as if there was a viable fear of exploiting a site as a form of advertisement, en.wp might have experienced it first and would have already addressed it. I don't argue that we have to go case-by-case, as I've seen at en.wp, books published from something like "Books LLC" actually being a purchasable book consisting of Wikipedia articles. But let's face it, no one "uses" en.ws to drive book sales; we just don't have high enough traffic. Potentially could happen in the future is different than is happening.

The placement of such a template being either in the top-right corner or in the notes field, I have no preference. I suggested note placement as an option actually, but it seemed to be preferred up top by some other contributors. If that cans the problem, I have no problem with moving it down there. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Book sales? Wikipedia as a basis for anything??

Don't know that is all about. I was talking about search-engine based advertising, the click stream, user bounces and the resulting inflated hits on a few targeted articles. — George Orwell III (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no; that was in response to Cygnis "commercial purposes," I assume the click-bait issue you've brought up is something that cannot be dealt with internally; in the same way that there are dozens of en.wp mirror sites with ads. And using en.wp as a basis, I'm not saying we should because they do, but rather as a supplement. - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The use of portal links in text.

Earlier today a text which I had proofread led a discussion between me and Cygnis regarding the use of portal links in texts. If I may summarize the opposing points briefly:

For

  1. portal visibility
  2. further/continued reading on ws
  3. quick access to sister sites

Against

  1. texts are termini (never thought I'd use that word)
  2. portals are undeveloped

Either way, I think we should at least begin with a vote to establish a consensus. I ask that you read the discussion we had for further points made. Now that the side I'm on is clear to you, I can say that I personally find using them (and not overusing them, which I don't think can exist on en.ws quite yet) is helpful, as I do peruse around works fairly often, and don't read the entire thing most of the time, just portions. I have found myself hopelessly typing in "Portal:XXXX" hoping that it will hit or turn up in a search result. Either way, I find the portals to be useful and think that they should be showcased. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've given my opinion on this before (had a long discussion with CI, in fact). I don't think the technological restrictions of brick and mortar libraries should bind us: just because they can't link doesn't mean that we shouldn't link. Links can provide significant value to readers, but we should be extremely cautious to ensure that the word being linked and the target of the link are in fact the same thing.

Thus in principle I support linking to portals and author pages in the main namespace. —Spangineer (háblame) 01:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

For us, I believe that the purpose of a link is to link to something of definite value to the work (or adding context to the work) and unambiguous in its intent, eg. to an author page, or to a work, (onsite - easy decisions), or maybe to an archaic word at wikt (offsite, and some interpretation and decision-making required). It is less about by the way, if you follow this link there is more about it; and it is not about linking to something that is best guess about to where it should link.

There is a some good discussions about portals at here here and especially here. I see linking to portals is primarily a header issue, though we have extended that in the last proposal where we may have done work and research on a person or topic (that is not an author, and not a work). So I would not be linking to the portal namespace solely to add to portal visibility from the body of a work, and if a portal is under-developed, I probably wouldn't link there unless it had high relevance. So that says that I am place between you and CI in the continuum, and probably between Spangineer and CI though not that far from Spangineer. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

With regard to your call for a vote. I hardly would call a ":vote" akin to establishing a consensus, it establishes or eliminates a proposal, ie. situation A or no A, or situation A or B. IMNSHO a vote should be the last course of action, not the first, as it forces opinions and can be divisive. Have the discussion, be reflective, let other points of view flow through, and try to get to a true consensus with which people broadly agree, and to which few people intently disagree. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the vote, I may have written that too soon, as I did not see this as a very contentious issue. I would prefer over everything else to simply come up with a decision by a variety of members on to whether or not it is permissable. This way, either Cygnis would not have deleted all the links from the text, or, I would not have scratched my head when I saw them deleting every Portal: link I provided in the text without as much as word to me (other than some odd ;) edit summaries, ha Cygnis, if I had linked to Ancient Egypt, I think that would be bizarre.) Would I think it was wrong if the vote tended towards no linking in Main space? Yes. But I would get over it in a minute, and would feel better about creating a guideline to follow which reflected the communities view point on the topic, and not just Cygnis', as well as giving a more uniform environment to en.ws

Regarding value in linking: there are overlinking guidelines which exist at en.wp which we can look into, but for value, I find that tough to decide on. The truth is that I read en.wp articles the same way I do en.ws works, both are apparent sources to me which I do not fiercely contend (in the former really only on well-referenced articles); the only difference is that I open up no tabs while reading an en.ws work, and a couple at en.wp to look into after I have finished what I am reading. - Theornamentalist 20:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

  • "The supposition we are swept along to is too vast, and, rather than face the conclusion, we abandon the premise from which it starts. We give up our own immortality sooner than believe that all the hosts of Hottentots and Australians that have been, and shall ever be, should share it with us in secula seculorum." [2] —unsigned comment by Cygnis insignis (talk) .
I didn't claim to be using the principal of linking portals correct altogether, although after creating the link, I visited the portal for the first time. Even in blue-linking works to Portal:New York, of which I probably know a fair amount of, I am not building it strictly for me. Maybe that link to NY might be useful for someone from Johannesburg; but it did not harm me in seeing it; someone who can see the Empire State Building from their rooftop. - Theornamentalist 20:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Low resolution in proofreading

On the page Page:The London Gazette 19345.djvu/1, if you click the "Image" tab, you get a high resolution image (print quality) where it is easy to tell the difference between e and c, between period and comma. But when you "Edit" the same page and try to zoom in on the image, the resolution is much lower, and it's almost impossible to tell the difference between period and comma. I think this wasn't so a year ago. Was this bug introduced recently? Has it been reported? --LA2 15:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This was recently changed to reduce page load, it is possible to modify each Index to increase, or decrease, the resolution shown in pages. I haven't played around with this, but you can see a field in when editing an Index. If there is a problem, like 'c' or 'e', that is not self-evident, by the word or context, it is not often resolved by the djvu; I would check the jpeg at the source. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The djvu is the source in most cases. And it was scanned in a certain resolution to allow for reading of every detail of the page. It is an axiom that I want to zoom in to the full resolution of the image when I'm proofreading. This new limitation is a crime. For newspapers like The London Gazette, each day's issue is a new Djvu file and I would have to set the full resolution with a bot for all index pages. --LA2 17:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Over at sv.wikisource we added the Width= attribute in the Index: page, but the image still doesn't zoom to full resolution, only 1000 pixels. What else do we need to change? --LA2 17:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Did you enter a value into the width field? — billinghurst sDrewth 18:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Where you entered a width was entered on sv:Index:Post-_och_Inrikes_Tidningar_1836-02-05.djvu it zooms perfectly for me. — billinghurst sDrewth 18:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Really? When I zoom in, I still only see a pixelized coarse image, where it is impossible to see the difference between c and e, quite different from the full resolution of the scanned image. What am I doing wrong, then? --LA2 18:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Obvious, but I forget all the time: Did you clear your cache? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Now it works, thanks to this edit. Now I have to update some 60 Index: pages, setting the full width of the scanned images for each. It would have been easier if I could just set Width=full. It would have been better yet, if this Width= argument wasn't needed, since it is an axiom that a proofreader wants to zoom in to the full scanned resolution. If the initial page load takes too long, just load a smaller image initially and get the larger image during zoom. How hard can that be? --LA2 18:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

For the bulk of our works, we simply do NOT need full images with great resolution. On the occasions where we do, it is a simple matter of adding that field when creating the work, otherwise it is a simple matter of editing the Index file to make the changes for currently existing. For the works that you had, running a bot and setting them all to 3000px would have been a simple task —unsigned comment by billinghurst (talk) .

Created Template:Language characters for where help is needed with character sets

I regularly run into situations of Greek characters, and their intricacy usually defeats me (lacking edamoocationwink). To enable for these to be parked in the Page: namespace on pages marked Problematic but to differentiate them from graphics, etc., I have created the (facile) maintenance template {{Language characters}}. Its purpose is to mark the text as having other character set, and to put those pages into the Category:Problematic language so people who do know these characters can easily pop by, do a quick job on the queue. It would be great if the literate would be able to pop past and help clean out the category. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As already stated in the past, even if I work regularly on it.source, if you are not in a hurry I enjoy tinkering with Unicode polytonic Gree so if there's a page, a category, a place to peruse for such tasks I'd be very glad to lend a hand. - εΔω 17:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
As indicated there is the category that is applied with the use of the template. I suppose one could manually link the template. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
While meandering through Category:Problematic to find texts to fix or to tag with your new invention, I came upon {{Symbol missing}} and its associated category Category:Pages with missing symbols. They may perhaps be merged or something. Prosody (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Good get. I have now merged {{Symbol missing}} into this template, and it uses | language = symbol. It won't be 100% accurate, but it will suffice; plus amended {{Language characters}} to categorise to both. Whilst there, I had a look at Category:Text integrity which looks a bit feral.

You might be able to use Magnus's tool http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite_test.php?project=wikisource which he has updated for WS to help weed out templates that are marked with {{page contains image}} and similar templates. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Re all this, {{CE needs Greek}} is in use on some dozens of pages. There is also {{CE needs Hebrew}}. These are part of the Catholic Encyclopedia upgrade effort, which is of course only fragmentary as of right now (WS:CEU). For the avoidance of doubt, these templates are on pages that still need the step of transfer into the Page: namespace, and therefore fall into a different class (volunteers who wish to assist would have to find the article themselves in the CE even to verify the Greek text). Charles Matthews (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly I also found {{Greek missing}}, {{Hebrew missing}} and {{Arabic missing}}, so I have converted all of these to utilise the same template, added them all to the same documentation and done some category fixes. This should all be a little neater. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Help with importing an Afrikaans Bible translation

Moved this question from Wikisource_talk:WikiProject_Translation#Help_with_importing_an_Afrikaans_Bible_translation A while ago, due to a license disagreement with WMF, I created my own wiki for translated works at [3]. The project was a dismal failure and I'd like to import the content here - most of which consists of a partial translation of the World English Bible. It's all available under the CC0 Waiver which is compatible, so there shouldn't be a license problem. However, I'm a Wikisource newbie, so I don't know:

  • Where the pages should be created for the translation and how they should be structured (I assume similarly to Bible (World English));
  • How the translated content should be cross-linked to the corresponding pages under Bible (World English).

Can anyone offer advice? Thanks! I can handle importing the content, making it a page per book, adding {{verse}} templates, etc. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to say this is definitive but the entire WEB project iself is still only in the draft stages (last update being Aug. of 2008) the way I read it and that may raise the question of if it should have been hosted here in such a state in the first place. Of couse, that may all be a moot point it being "the Bible" with all the supporting conversions/translations of this WEB version that already exist all over the internet, but I believe that is why the "incomplete" tag is present in spite of what appears to be a completed work. There is no hosting question as far as I can tell either as they've clearly placed it in the public-domain for re-use at will. Can't say much else to your other questions but I'm sure somebody with more knowledge in this area will be along sooner or later. — George Orwell III (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
For some more specific information about the details of adding the text, we don't have an independent Afrikaans Wikisource since there aren't too many texts, instead they're hosted on the multilingual site. It doesn't seem like there are any active Afrikaans-language contributors unfortunately, so you may just have to learn by imitation. It would probably be best to style it after the World English Bible, but replace the header template with the Hoof template, and place it in any appropriate categories. Linking together the English and the Afrikaans is a bit trickier, because the normal method of interlanguage linking doesn't seem to work with the multilingual Wikisource. So from the Afrikaans to the English, you can simply enter at the end of the document e.g. [[en:Bible (World English)/Numbers]], and that will place a link to the English version on the sidebar. For the English to the Afrikaans, though, you'll have to do something ad-hoc like link to the Afrikaans version in the Header's notes section. Best of luck. Prosody (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Treaty of Versailles

Should we make an index page for the Treaty of Versailles? Very important document. If someone could make the Index file, that would be great. (http://www.archive.org/details/treatyofversaill00knox) - Tannertsf (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm that IA .djvu is only speech made by U.S. Congressman about the Treaty - NOT the Treaty itself. I'll start looking for a "real" copy too? — (well I'm pretty much handicapped by the fact the Senate never ratified the treaty so most "official" sources here push copies of the Treaty of Berlin (1921) instead. I'll still keep an eye out though). — George Orwell III (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This look okay? Printed by the US Government Printing Office, has the presumably also normative French version on the facing page, contemporary (seems to have been published upon referral of the treaty to the US Senate). Unfortunatly no facsimiles of signatures, but I couldn 't find those anywhere. Prosody (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
You wouldn't find signatures and such on a Senate Committee ordered print so that is normal for the time & session of Congress. The linked shows it was ordered printed July 10th, 1919, is Library stamped Sept., 1919 and the Treaty was signed back in June of 1919 so it makes me believe the content is the one we need & not a draft or something but I can't be sure about that. Seems to be complete and resolution is of a fair to good quality but the zipper of pages from English to French and back sure is a pain. Are we sure we don't want to clean that up or maybe find another version? — George Orwell III (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
There's also an edition without French and cleaned up, published by some sort of contemporaneous public internationalist organization called the American Association for International Conciliation. I do kinda prefer the former for being from an official body of some sort, rather than some 1920s era hippies. Prosody (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The Australian Government put up a few representative page scans of its authenticated copy, including what appears to be all the signature facsimilies, here. Would there be any objection to using the above mentioned edition for the text itself, and in an explicitly explained appendix including the signatures? Prosody (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection to that but I don't know if that is community appropriate considering the above mentioned copy is also the content the U.S. Senate refused to ratify inspite of President Wilson's (or his delegated representative's) signature -- making it null & void in the U.S. never mind legally binding here. — George Orwell III (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I would be okay with anything ... but would we have to proof the french pages too on the version mentioned above? - Tannertsf (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

IIRC if you don't create the page then the Proofread Page transcluder skips right over it. Shouldn't present any problem other than having to hit the next page button twice. Prosody (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Well then I vote for uploading the Senate print - this way, fr.WS can do the same and skip the English pages if they ever get around to it. — George Orwell III (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Is someone going to upload it? - Tannertsf (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

DoneIndex:Treaty of Versailles.djvu. There's still some page number correction to do due to map inserts which aren't numbered. Also, after experimenting a bit, it turns out that I was a bit off: you have to actually save pages as blank for the PP transcluder to ignore them. Hopefully that isn't too much of a bother. Prosody (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

New templates: {{Linkable phrase start}} and {{Linkable phrase end}}

Abbreviations are: {{lps}} and {{lpe}}.

I have created these templates as a superset of the functionality of {{Hyphenated word start}} and {{Hyphenated word end}}. See the documentation page for details and examples.

They are useful in cases where an HTML link is split across two pages, and needs to be reunited properly when transcluded. The link may be surrounded by non-linked concatenated text before and after (eg, quote marks) and the link text may contain an embedded hyphenated word that is split across two pages.

Please let me know if you have any feedback (or bugs). -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternate invocation of {{Hyphenated word start}} and {{Hyphenated word end}}

I have now added an alternate version of these template calls, using named parameters:

  • {{hws |s= antici |e= pation }}
  • {{hwe |s= antici |e= pation }}

The regular version, using unnamed parameters, still works exactly as before:

  • {{hws |antici|anticipation}}
  • {{hwe |pation|anticipation}}

See the updated documentation page.

Only the regular version can be used for the relatively rare cases where the unsplit word is not merely a simple unmodified fusion of the split halves. For example "mother-in-law" = "mother-" + "in-law", and the hyphen must not be dropped when joining the split halves back together.

Hesperian also pointed out this example to me [4]:

"The classic example here is the old (i.e. pre-German orthography reform of 1996) German hyphenation rule in which ck was hyphenated as k-k; e.g. bäcker (baker) was hyphenated to bäk-ker. Under the reformed orthography that has now changed to bä-cker, but of course many people still prefer to use the older orthography."

-- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As I told into a previous talk (but I can't find it or remember if it was a scriptorium, or a personal talk!), I introduced into en.source the template Template:ShowTransclude (alias {{St}} that's simpler and much more general. It simply shows into nsPage: and nsIndex: the parameter 1, and transcludes the parameter 2 into any other namespace (another interesting case of indipendent discovery of the wheel!) . It doesn't adds any hyphen, it has to be included into parameter 1 if needed; and I usually use only one instance of it, marking the second part of a splitted word into the latter page, since I often don't know for sure how the splitted word ends. On the contrary, I wrap the first part of the splitted word into a noinclude tag. Both the display into nsPage, and the transclusion into ns0, is exactly the same of the result obtained with hws+hwe. The template is called it:Template:Pt into it.source, and it is slowly infecting other source projects; presently is one from the most frequently used templates into it.source, and it is called too by a number of other templates aimed to complex differential transclusion tasks, since, more or less, it can be used in any case where there's a need of a difference between nsPage: and ns0: text/code. --Alex brollo (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
From an end user's point of view, when handling hyphenated words {{st}} is exactly equivalent to {{hwe}}—it's even called with the exact same arguments. The difference is that {{hwe}} does some error checking, uses the <span> tag to create a tooltip (so you can see the entire unhyphenated word when you do a mouseover), allows the alternate s= and e= invocation, etc. Also, {{hws}} does a tooltip as well, whereas you just use raw <noinclude> tags there.
The internals of {{hwe}} may look more complicated, but that's just an artifact of Mediawiki's horribly obfuscated template definition syntax; if translated into the equivalent if-then-else pseudocode, it's quite simple to understand.
However, you also reuse {{st}} for another purpose, in Table of Contents pages, to cause chapter names to be linked in Index and Page namespace and unlinked in main namespace. Here, {{hwe}} can't be substituted because it only distingushes between Page namespace and everything else (ie, doesn't treat Index namespace the same as Page), and also because a tooltip makes no sense here. I suspect there are other similar templates used for similar purposes, eg, {{namespace link}}, maybe some standardization could be applied.
There are many templates along the lines of "do something in one namespace, and something different in another". The template {{st}} is in some sense the simplest possible version of that, but there's no reason not to have more specialized templates (eg, {{TOC link}}, {{DJVU page link}}) to suit specific contexts. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A bot to remove the ? marks

Do we have a bot which removes the w:replacement character" (U+FFFD, �), emnbedded at the beginning of the text lines of not proofread pages? — Ineuw talk 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

addressed at Wikisource:Bot requests — billinghurst sDrewth 23:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Those characters are removed too by cleanup() script by Hesperian, as soon as I found it my life changed! :-) Take a good look at User:Inductiveload page, the cleanup() script is one of mostly useful sctipts collected into User:Inductiveload/Regexp toolbar.js. Are you using them? You'd do, and all users should do, IMO. --Alex brollo (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

TOC linking help

Could someone help me by linking the TOC for Index:Chesterton - A Short History of England.djvu? - Tannertsf (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've got it. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 02:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Now how do I fill out the red links on the TOC titles? - Tannertsf (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Like any other red link. Click it and edit in the page. I'm off for now, see you round. By the way, a nice big set of Interior Reports is up. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 02:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I saw that the other day. Thank you. - Tannertsf (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How does one deal with marginal glosses?

Hi there,

I have been scanning the historical minute books of the Glasgow Southern Medical Society and uploading them. Most are handwritten, but some are typewritten, and all contain notes in the margins summarising adjacent paragraphs. This gives rise to several questions: First, this will clearly throw the OCR for a loop. Should the margin therefore be cropped out before OCR? If so, How can one do this and still maintain integrity of the source scan? Second, should the marginal glosses (in handwritten and typewritten work) be retained in the finished transcript? If so, does the wikimedia format support margins/columns, or should there be a separate line for each gloss labelled as such? The latter option would be quite burdensome given the sheer number of glosses. Johnhglen (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I would definitely say the marginal glosses should be retained in the source scan to be uploaded to Commons, though you might want to use a cropped version for OCRing. Although I don't think OCR would work very well on handwriting anyway. To handle marginal glosses we would use {{Left sidenote}} and its associated templates - I can explain more about these if you like. - Htonl (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiGuide on Wikisource

Dear Wikilibrarians, Wikimedia Italy is pleased to announce you the release of the third Wiki-guide, a 7-minutes video presentation entirely dedicated to Wikisource. The video is available on Commons and Youtube, in CC-BY-SA. We hope that this video will be useful also for you (as it is for the Italian Wikisource project). English subtitles are available, but need proofreading and polishing (here you can find the original Italian script and the French one). Feel free to embed it where you like (e.g. we did on template Welcome) and share it. Hope you enjoy, and give us feedback! --Aubrey (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Can't see images

I tried to search for a solution, and even tried a few that I stumbled across where others had similar issues (purge cache, etc.), but to no avail. Now, that's not to say I followed directions correctly, of course! I can not see two images on this page: the first large image (I can see the initial) and the page image). I am also unable to see the same illustration on its corresponding Main: Page. I see the illustration just fine at Commons, but not the page image (only when I click on it to see a larger view can I see it correctly)... Always a rotten apple in the bunch... Anyone have a hunch? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably(?) thanks to User:Theornamentalist, I can now see the illustration :) ... But still not the page image (i.e. source image). Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Ha, no problem. I encountered a similar problem with an image some time ago and for whatever reason found that changing the width made the image show. I have absolutely no idea why; as for the scan, I can see it. If it is of any help, I'm using Chrome. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
FWIW... The thumbnail servers are overloaded and acting screwey lately. Its a known issue & being worked on apparently. See above Wikisource:Scriptorium#WMF_blog_-_Commons_thumbnails_issues — George Orwell III (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of Licencing

Do we have a guideline for using a licencing template per page? Intuitively (well, after working here for a bit) I've been thinking and somewhat applying the following:

  1. Non-poetic / un-instinctively partitionable work (imagine a book with chapters) — license on the front or title page only.
  2. Poetic work — license per page, independent (subj.) work.

I guess it comes down to what is searchable, as I doubt someone will think "I want to read only the fifth chapter of The Swiss Family Robinson," as opposed to "Let me see what "Temperament" brings up in a search; Oh, it is a poem." I suppose my point is, do we have an existing guideline; is it safer to simply mark every page with a license; is it fine as long as the work is a subpage of something with a license; etc.? - Theornamentalist (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

To a guideline specifically stated <shrug>, it has been part of discussions. To our practice, it is one that has morphed with the addition of ProofreadPage, and the structure of (sub)works as subpages. It is now pretty much a licence for the published work, which is usually akin to what is at the root level. IIRC this was discussed as one of the advantages of the placement of works within a hierarchical representation of a publication, ie. where a poem is a subpage of a larger work, the publication covers it.

This also pretty much applies for adding similar components such as year parameter, wikipedia parameter, portal parameter and category. If adding it to the top level is appropriate and there is no difference at the subpage, then no need to add further; though if there is difference from the root level or advantage in discriminating from the root level, then suitably add additional detail. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Understanding author index management

To avoid creating duplicate Author entries, I searched the two char indexes (from the author templates) and consequently several questions emerged:

  • Is the list manually managed or is there a bot that updates a list? If so, how often?

What is the criteria for an author to appear on the list?

  • Must the author page be complete with birth and death dates?
  • Must the first name(s) be complete?

Any info is most appreciated.— Ineuw talk 20:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that they need to have more than one book on Wikisource, and it would be a definite need if they appear on any of our sister projects (Wikipedia, Wikitionary, etc.) - Tannertsf (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I add authors to the lists manually if I have created the Author: page. I have done this with incomplete birth/death dates (which I do not consider unusual form the lists) although the first name issue has not come up in my experience. It is something a bot could do but I don't know if one exists and, from a quick look through page histories, I cannot see any evidence of one. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Generally manual, though I know that Phe has once been extracted and styled the data with Phebot, and then added it as his account IIRC. We wish to have the data as complete as possible. The authoritative collection of the author names is through Category:Authors though it doesn't display the years of live, which is presumably why the compiled list exists. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Really appreciate all the input. Since the list is manually appended, I will plan to append the list with the missing PSM authors.— Ineuw talk 21:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation error

I keep getting this server error:

Request: POST http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Helvering_v._Cement_Investors&action=submit, from 208.80.152.88 via sq61.wikimedia.org (squid/2.7.STABLE7) to () Error: ERR_CANNOT_FORWARD, errno [No Error] at Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:18:45 GMT

I've gotten it momentarily before across Wikimedia projects, but right now it's happening repeatedly and only on WS. LegalSkeptic (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting it on Commons and Wikipedia, too.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I am too now. Yesterday I was only getting it on WS. I don't know what the story is because I'm too stupid to figure out IRC (I know, I'm a really crappy computer geek, I've just never been able to connect to it). LegalSkeptic (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
There has been major issues with WMF servers (especially squid) in the past 24 hours, and think that letting those conniptions settle before getting overly concerned about the specific. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Need help please!

I cannot get this pages index to work on Report of the Secretary of the Interior/1871. Can someone help me out please? - Tannertsf (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed; just make sure the index name matches the one you are transcluding ("U.S. Department of the Interior Annual Report 1871.djvu") - Theornamentalist (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Stupid mistake. - Tannertsf (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Another nasty one that I've doublechecked ... but its still not working. Here it is: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letters_on_church_matters - Tannertsf (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Next time don't include the namespace prefix (Index: in this case) in the index= setting of <pages> — George Orwell III (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Lamenting lack of WS useful toys and now m:Tech

I have been trying to locate people who write wiki TOYS and may be willing to write them for WS, especially the coding inept. After bleating like a lost sheep for a number of days in IRC trying to find where one would get traction when outside of WP, it was decided that a universal pit on meta: would be start. The page m:Tech now exists, and here is hoping that we can get some traction for enWS and the wider WS project.

I have started the page with a request to help determine whether which Page: pages are transcluded per Index: page, either to identify those that are missed, or to help when doing maintenance following a file replacement (for whatever reason), discussion at m:Tech#Looking for a tool that checks YES or NO for_transclusions. If you have thoughts about running this sort of query and how it could be useful, please take a moment to wade through my initial posts there, and address adjustments that you think worth considering. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That 'detect transcluded Page:' tool is lookin' good already! Not sure that placement is the best spot though. — George Orwell III (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Happy for suggestions. Forcing it to the right hand side seemed overkill, so the other option is trailing on the page. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
well, accepting the premise that the mediawiki template is basically a 2 column HTML table and the left-most column may hold what one day will mirror some form of metadata if not some kinship with the newer Commons "book" type templates down the road, I'd think we'd want to "keep right" and stick to the 'remarks' side along with that book creation tool icon. I've quickly added our own icon for the status detection tool to illustrate what I mean here in general. — George Orwell III (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Had to fiddle as we had cross edits. Redid some of the formatting to not use templates, and then reimplemented your positional change. As I am not icon-driven alone, my suggestion to the positioning would be to try to get them side by side, and then add some indicative text of the purpose, otherwise they are in danger of being images only. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Alt text was included - depends on if you can see it with a mouse hover I guess. I'm not all that rigid on an icon approach but this tool seems like it is best used by more experienced folks than those new to the game so why try to instruct them there? Irregardless, I still think staying away from the "left-side"'s standard biblio/bio type entries makes life easier down the road. — George Orwell III (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
With some direction from Jayvdb, there is now a configured test sandbox for this sort of file play. The sandbox is at Template:Sandbox/Proofreadpage index template working with Index:Sandbox2.djvu has been configured to be ruled. We will just need to remember to update the template back to a current set point. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
With some further playing, one can get a rough comparison between the two Index pages at Wikisource:Sandbox/Index — billinghurst sDrewth 09:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Page: transclusion check tool

Wondering ('cause I'm curious) what this does/is for? It is on this Index page. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Leads to:
<type 'exceptions.IndexError'>	Python 2.7.1: /opt/ts/python/2.7/bin/python
Sat Apr 23 04:16:09 2011
A problem occurred in a Python script. Here is the sequence of function calls leading up to the error, in the order they occurred.

 /home/mzmcbride/public_html/cgi-bin/checker.py in ()
    148     except IndexError:
    149         clean_title = title.replace(' ','_')
=>  150     page_links = get_page_links(cursor, clean_title)
    151     if page_links:
    152         # Sort!
page_links undefined, get_page_links = <function get_page_links>, cursor = <MySQLdb.cursors.Cursor object>, clean_title = 'Earle,_Does_Price_Fixing_Destroy_Liberty,_1920'
 /home/mzmcbride/public_html/cgi-bin/checker.py in get_page_links(cursor=<MySQLdb.cursors.Cursor object>, index_page='Earle,_Does_Price_Fixing_Destroy_Liberty,_1920')
     67     for row in cursor.fetchall():
     68         pl_title = row[0]
=>   69         sort_key = int(row[0].rsplit('/', 1)[1])
     70         page_links.append([pl_title, sort_key])
     71     return page_links
sort_key undefined, builtin int = <type 'int'>, row = ('Earle,_Does_Price_Fixing_Destroy_Liberty,_1920,_001.jpg',), ].rsplit undefined
<type 'exceptions.IndexError'>: list index out of range 
      args = ('list index out of range',) 
      message = 'list index out of range'

Well at first glance, the tool's developer never considered the chance some Indexes might be built on something other than DJVU files -- such as a PDF file or, in your example, .JPGs. Hopefully this will be rectified shortly. — George Orwell III (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahh... I Google searched, searched this site, other Wikimedia sites... Seems all I had to do was read about the tool right here on this discussion page above! Doesn't mean I understand it ;) but I'm sure all is in good hands!Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Didn't even pop into my mind to check for non-djvu files. I will look to configure so that at least for the moment, it only shows for djvu (which should be possible). — billinghurst sDrewth 04:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Just tried it out with a sample Index:page (djvu)... neat! Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Done MZMcB has fixed the code, it was an issue around the sorting key — djvu [Page /1 ... /100] and the jpg [Page 001 ... 100] — billinghurst sDrewth 06:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree that this looks very useful. I note that putting the contents pages into the Index field "Table of Contents" causes them to be on the Transcluded list even though they're not in Mainspace. This has potential for puzzlement. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Good catch. Turns out the output is also sortable. Just click on the column-header text. — George Orwell III (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it just checks for the act of transclusion, which was my request, if I have the words "main namespace" prominent then we will need to amend it. Also to note that I have started documenting at Wikisource:Tools and scripts both for this tool, and some of the others available. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

{{PD-RSGov}} redundant, needs a successor

Just had a look at {{PD-RSGov}} and it quotes Serbia and Montengro and a 2004 Act which looks as a national entity to have been complete by 2006. So I am reasonably sure that tag is not current, and we should be looking to update and clarify the Serbian copyright. I was wondering whether someone had the time and inclination to undertake the task. Commons has {{PD-SerbiaGov}} which should be a good start. For someone who is a little unsure of these have a look at {{license}}. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I cobbled something together from Wikipedia and placed it HERE, although I have no idea if this helps. :-) — Ineuw talk 05:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Footnote carried over to second page

What formatting do you use to split a footnote over two pages? Please see and play here, and on the beginning of the following page as well, if you will... Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the two pages to use the new ref follow syntax. I put it into action in the sandbox. —Spangineer (háblame) 18:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Renders well in the Main too, from what I can tell... Thank you for your help! Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
To note that I updated the help in Help:Proofread the other day to cover this subject. It would be worthwhile someone to sanity check my words. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A case of reverse ref-follow—Please assist!

If someone could please check out pages 80 & 81 for me... It is a case where a reference is noted on one page, but the footnote actually begins on the previous page, and ends on the referenced page. I tried to be clever with formatting placement, but you'll see that I am not so clever after all! You can check your correction on the Mainspace for Chapter IV to see if it translated correctly. Thanks ahead of time! Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

@Cygnis: Re:I don't see a problem, except these are the wrong way around. 'ref name' then 'ref follow'...: That was just me trying to be "clever" :) by switching things up hoping it would render correctly while keeping the reference in the "appropriate" spot on page 81. Thanks for tweaking/checking! Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I see what is going on now … what an utterly perverse solution by that sub-editor! This is the best I can do. You should use {{Page}} if you want line numbers, but changes in the software affected the 'old-school' solution I tried to apply. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
All of the text on page 80 does not render, however, in the Main as a result... I have an idea if you'll allow me a few minutes. It's unconventional, and uses hws/hwe... Might not work, but then again it might... Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Not what I thought (just as I thought)... Can you revert back to your latest changes (pages 80-81)? I need sleep (brain dead), and perhaps an elf will do more work on it as I do!? :) Thanks much, Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I did something silly, I think this might work with a revert. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
If "silly" works, why not!? I have made note of your solution here in case it comes up again. Thank you... And I do like seeing the line numbers in the Main... I wish they would render with the "PDF-friendly" transclusion notation, however... When I complete Chapter 4, I will temporarily(?) go back to the PDF-friendly notation, for I would like to download/save the chapter for personal use in that format; then it is fair game for "you and yours!" Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinking

Quick question: When concerning wikilinking of authors, etc. mentioned in transcribed pieces, if a link is both available at Wikipedia as well as here at WS, which link should we err on the side of? Should we use discretion based on the amount of pertinent info. to be gained from the choices? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've wondered about this myself and I go for the Wikisource link first. I think it's best to stay internal to one project as much as possible with wikilinking. The author page should have a link to Wikipedia anyway, so if the reader wants WP they can get to it quite easily. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Link local. If there is no author page, then we should create red links, and create the author pages after. If there is no link, then "… one day". For full relevance, we do have the wikipedia = parameter that works in the {{header}} template. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
That would help me too, actually... Not that I could tackle Mill's Principles of Political Economy on my own, but a "red flag" might prompt me to get the ball rolling—"… one day." Same with author pages... Blue links lead one to assume nothing further need be done... Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean by red linking, just to place the link using {{colors}}, as in I just placed it in Author:Eugène Aubrey-Vitet?— Ineuw talk 00:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
"Redlink" as in "no page" and create on click. FWIW you cannot add formatting to the components of header that come from {{plain sister}}. There is no piping of output available.— billinghurst sDrewth 04:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks.— Ineuw talk 05:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wiki linking redux

Unless things have changed,{{red link}} is not possible between wikis. How could I implement this on the Authors’ list? — Ineuw talk 23:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You cannot do interwiki redlink. Generally the purpose of interwiki is to existing pages. Depending on what you are trying to link the choices are: text (no link), note on talk page, to omit, or to link and create the alternate work at the interwiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright muddle

User:ResidentScholar left a note on my talk page saying that the copy of Annals of the World is copyrighted because of some editing by the authors. As I couldn't really figure out what he meant, as all the evidence I found pointed to the contrary, I decided to move it here so that it can be solved in a timely manner. Our conversation is included below.

Extended content

Dear Arlen22,

I have just discovered that the edition of the work you added, is indeed copyrighted—but not just the "formatting". The editors Larry and Marion Pierce say they edited prose which was "the worst piece...[they had] ever seen." There is also a secondary issue of the added modern commentary they attached to some of the entries. Regardless, I don't think it's possible to separate the prose cleanup from work itself and present a non-copyrighted piece here at Wikisource.

I am listing this work at Possible Copyright Violations (WS:COPYVIO), as Wikisource doesn't include works that can't be used for reproductions of a commercial nature.

ResScholar (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure about this? Please check this thoroughly, as I can't at the moment, but may be able to in a couple days. Annals of the World is everywhere regarded as being in the public domain, to the best of my knowledge, and no copyright has been claimed. Furthermore, the website owner said that it was in the public domain to the best of his knowledge. I will therefore take the liberty to remove the copyvio notice from the page until further evidence to the contrary. Arlen22 (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The burden is on you to show why it should be kept once a copyright notice has been discovered. You said you purchased an e-book of the work. According to the editor's notice of copyright that I found, the printer of that e-book was not legally permitted to print it and sell it either. I told you the work had editors. Aren't you at all curious about them, if simply to properly credit them as editors? I added back the copyright tag, and am reseting the minimum clock for the work at WS:COPYVIO to two weeks from today. If you respond within two weeks, the clock may be reset again, but if not the work will probably be deleted at the end of that period. ResScholar (talk) 06:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you tell me what the editors names are, who published the book, and what year the copyright was? Also, the owner of the site said it was in the public domain, if that helps much. Arlen22 (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the main reason I am bringing it here is because it was my understanding that Annals of the World is in the public domain, and I wouldn't think that changes by the editors would copyright it again. Help appreciated, Arlen22 (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen a case about the lower edge, but certainly enough meddling with the text, particularly rewriting sections, would give a copyright to the editors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Does it help any that the owner of the site I got it from said it was in the Public Domain? Arlen22 (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The best space to have the detailed discussion is at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations as the detail is there, and generally so are the knowledgeable people. — billinghurst sDrewth
So do you recommend that even general questions about the copyright status of a text, e.g. be brought up there (whether already uploaded or no)—not merely those which may involve violation of copyright? You may even consider adding a text bar (a la PotM bar) at the top of this discussion page listing other discussion pages which would better serve questions commonly asked on this page:
Extended content
<div style="margin-left: -1em; margin-right: -1em; margin-bottom: 10em">
<div style="background-color: #EEEEEE; padding-bottom: 0.5em; padding-top: 0.65em; padding-left: 1em; padding-right: 1em; font-family: Trebuchet MS, Gill Sans; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAAAAA; border-top: 1px solid #AAAAAA">
{| cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="background-color: #EEEEEE; text-align: center; margin: auto; font-size: 90%;"
|-
| <div style="width: 12em; text-align: center; margin-right: 1em; border-right: 1px solid white; border-bottom: 1px solid white">
<div style="border: 1px solid #AAAAAA">
<div style="border-top: 1px solid white; border-left: 1px solid white">
[[Wikisource:Possible copyright violations|Copyright discussion]]
</div>
</div>
</div>
| <div style="width: 10em; text-align: center; margin-right: 1em; border-right: 1px solid white; border-bottom: 1px solid white">
<div style="border: 1px solid #AAAAAA">
<div style="border-top: 1px solid white; border-left: 1px solid white">
[[Wikisource:Scriptorium|Central Discussion]]
</div>
</div>
</div>
| <div style="width: 10em; text-align: center; margin-right: 1em; border-right: 1px solid white; border-bottom: 1px solid white">
<div style="border: 1px solid #AAAAAA">
<div style="border-top: 1px solid white; border-left: 1px solid white">
[[Wikisource:Other Discussion|Other Discussion]]
</div>
</div>
</div>
|}
</div>
Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
This specific discussion is about the possibility of a specific work already at enWS being copyright and the discussion was started on that page, and it was referred to that page. Keeping that discussion to the smallest number of places as possible has benefits, and for that discussion it suits us to have the discussion on a specific page for when we go looking for the archived discussion.

To general questions about copyright? I don't see that we have made that any specific requirement. The other page has people with a more specific activity/expertise/interest/knowledge so there can be advantages in the more complex issues having the discussion there when it is or may involve works to be hosted locally. No compulsion. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Good to go... I guess adding a "So" at the beginning of my question inferred some conclusion was reached on my part; merely bad wording on my part! I know you didn't make any specific mention about general copyright questions, that's why I thought I'd ask... Since I have recently had a couple general questions about copyright myself, I just wanted to make sure that any future questions I might have are asked in the right/best place. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Baird's manual of American college fraternities

Could someone find me the editions, beside the 1879 one (which is already up) of these? http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Baird%27s_Manual_of_American_College_Fraternities_(1879) is what we have already. Would aprreciate it ASAP. - Tannertsf (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Search results
— billinghurst sDrewth 16:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The Gallic War

Could someone help me find a all-English and good scan of Caesar's The Gallic War? It would be appreciated ASAP. - Tannertsf (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikisource:Red link

I've added a guideline for red links, Wikisource:Red link. This is mostly based on the Wikipedia guideline of the same name, with some adaptation and Wikisource specific stuff added. The adaptation is mostly based on what seems to happen already, along with some comments made here on Scriptorium in the past. The page probably needs a few more people to go through it correcting the mistakes I expect I've made. There have been questions along the lines of red link usage in the past, so I thought this would be a useful (and easy) page to create. Belatedly, is it OK for me to just create pages like this? If I ever have enough time, I'm thinking of adding more help pages (and maybe a little more policy pages too), so it would be good to know the protocol here. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding works

Hi. I was taking a gander through the site, and came upon Wikisource:WikiProject CrankyLibrarian. It seems relatively outdated, as it mainly went with just copy/pasting the text onto the page. I would VERY GLADLY put the books on here with .djvu files from internet archive and transclude them. Should I though? Many thoughts are welcome. - Tannertsf (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Pagelist question

Does anybody know of a way to get the roman parameter-value in <pagelist /> to produce "uppercase" roman numerals?

Using

{{UC|<pagelist from=1023 to=1116 1023to1116=roman 1023=1 />}}

... gets the roman numerals to "uppercase" on the Index: page alright but this doesn't translate when applying customized Running Headers in the Header: field when the template has {{{pagenum}}} in its syntax/string.

I was just wondering if there was some other way around using {{UC}} in that field too -- hopefully by using some long forgotten pagelist paramater that produces "uppercase" roman numerals as roman does in producing "lowercase" roman numerals instead. — George Orwell III (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Try highroman. I think that it is undocumented, however, from my interpretation of the code that option should give what you want. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks... works just as needed. :) — George Orwell III (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Urk re documentation. It is noted at oldwikisource:Wikisource:ProofreadPage — billinghurst sDrewth 14:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Shelley's Stanzas

The The complete poetical works of Percy Bysshe Shelley, including materials never before printed in any edition of the poems/Stanzas—April, 1814 and The complete poetical works of Percy Bysshe Shelley, including materials never before printed in any edition of the poems/Stanzas—April, 1814 is a same poem, one of them should be deleted or redirected to other. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not identical. One was unsourced, the other from Gutenberg [originally]. I merged all that to scan based copy (I had been intending to get the Oxford edition for a while, for problems like this). That version of the poem is now found from redirect: Stanzas—April, 1814. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

List of author page hits

I noticed Project Gutenberg had a top 100 authors list. Of course we have author pages so I wondered how often they were frequented. So without further ado, here is a list of the top 96 author pages visited at Wikisource on January 1st, 2011 (UTC), followed by the number of hits.

1. Author:H._P._Lovecraft, 101 --------------------- 47.Author:Herman_Melville, 11
2. Author:Robert_Ervin_Howard, 78 47.Author:Jonathan_Swift, 11
3. Author:Edgar_Allan_Poe, 52 47.Author:Leo_Tolstoy, 11
4. Author:William_Topaz_McGonagall, 36 47.Author:Lyndon_Baines_Johnson, 11
5. Author:Arthur_Conan_Doyle, 35 47.Author:Plato, 11
5. Author:Emily_Dickinson, 35 47.Author:Jane_Austen, 11
7. Author:William_Shakespeare, 33 57.Author:Benjamin_Franklin, 10
8. Author:Alfred_Tennyson, 27 57.Author:Charles_Darwin, 10
9. Author:John_Donne, 26 57.Author:Charles_Wesley, 10
10.Author:Bret_Harte, 25 57.Author:Florence_Earle_Coates, 10
10.Author:John_Keats, 25 57.Author:Herodotus, 10
12.Author:Ambrose_Bierce, 22 57.Author:Theodore_Kaczynski, 10
13.Author:Gilbert_Keith_Chesterton, 21 57.Author:Theodore_Roosevelt, 10
14.Author:Oscar_Wilde, 20 57.Author:William_Butler_Yeats, 10
15.Author:Jack_London, 17 57.Author:Woodrow_Wilson, 10
15.Author:Robert_Louis_Stevenson, 17 57.Author:Abraham_Lincoln, 10
17.Author:Charles_Dickens, 16 67.Author:Arthur_Schopenhauer, 9
17.Author:O._Henry, 16 67.Author:Bertrand_Russell, 9
17.Author:Mark_Twain, 16 67.Author:Michael_Faraday, 9
20.Author:Aristotle, 15 67.Author:Fyodor_Dostoevsky, 9
20.Author:Herbert_George_Wells, 15 67.Author:George_Gordon_Byron, 9
20.Author:Mahatma_Gandhi, 15 67.Author:Henry_David_Thoreau, 9
20.Author:William_Blake, 15 67.Author:John_Milton, 9
24.Author:Agatha_Christie, 14 67.Author:Montague_Rhodes_James, 9
24.Author:Honoré_de_Balzac, 14 67.Author:René_Descartes, 9
24.Author:Lewis_Carroll, 14 67.Author:Robert_Browning, 9
24.Author:Robert_Burns, 14 67.Author:Sax_Rohmer, 9
24.Author:Voltaire, 14 67.Author:Sigmund_Freud, 9
29.Author:Emily_Brontë, 13 67.Author:Thomas_Frederick_Tout, 9
29.Author:Friedrich_Nietzsche, 13 67.Author:Thomas_Hardy, 9
29.Author:Guy_Wetmore_Carryl, 13 67.Author:Thomas_Hobbes, 9
29.Author:Percy_Bysshe_Shelley, 13 67.Author:Walter_de_la_Mare, 9
29.Author:Rabindranath_Tagore, 13 67.Author:Adolf_Hitler, 9
29.Author:Robert_Frost, 13 84.Author:Bram_Stoker, 8
29.Author:Saki, 13 84.Author:Elizabeth_I, 8
36.Author:Alexander_Pope, 12 84.Author:Gottfried_Leibniz, 8
36.Author:Barack_Obama, 12 84.Author:Beatrix_Potter, 8
36.Author:Dante_Alighieri, 12 84.Author:Guy_de_Maupassant, 8
36.Author:Francis_Scott_Fitzgerald, 12 84.Author:Immanuel_Kant, 8
36.Author:George_W._Bush, 12 84.Author:Napoleon_Bonaparte, 8
36.Author:James_Joyce, 12 84.Author:Polycarp, 8
36.Author:Lysander_Spooner, 12 84.Author:Thomas_More, 8
36.Author:Rudyard_Kipling, 12 84.Author:Victor_Hugo, 8
36.Author:Samuel_Taylor_Coleridge, 12 84.Author:William_Henry_Davies, 8
36.Author:Thomas_Gray, 12 84.Author:William_Prideaux_Courtney, 8
36.Author:Virginia_Woolf, 12 84.Author:Xenophon, 8
47.Author:Clark_Ashton_Smith, 11
47.Author:Edgar_Rice_Burroughs, 11
47.Author:Edna_St._Vincent_Millay, 11
47.Author:Henry_Wadsworth_Longfellow, 11
More statistics

On that same day users visited 122,000 different pages and 2.09 gigabytes of text were returned to users. ResScholar (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC) updated 11:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on Authors list
Excellent! I thank you for placing this information here. It is very interesting to see which are the most interesting. But here is something else to consider and that is many, if not most, of these authors are well-known. There are other authors that are not so well-known but yet were once famous or are now totally unknown. I think that part of what we need to do, and I do, is make the unknowns known again. How to do that is anyone's guess but I have done it with two people of the past. Just making WikiSource (WS) known is important. I meet and talk with too many people that know nothing about WikiSource. Most have heard of WikiPedia (WP) but not WikiSource. I am writing about educated people that have been through a university. So, while I applaud the task of all of these known authors it also causes me to think about the need to make others known as well as how to promote WS itself. Kind Regards, —William Maury Morris II Talk 14:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The first three on your list are powerful in their own right as plain text and more so as codes are used in better formatting. But they are more powerful because they connect to speech files. Perhaps WikiSource source itself should work more towards creating files like Librovox does. I feel sure we have people here that are also good readers. It would be a matter of how to create files similar to Librovox and having volunteers read text -- or on a lesser idea to use computer-read files to generate the speech files and then add in the coded works. Apparently this is what it takes to bring in people who are weary of so much text on Internet and prefer audible books. —William Maury Morris II Talk 18:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't see that it's within our scope to promote unknown authors over known authors. Nor do I see any reason that Wikisource should move into Librivox's territory; they create audio files from public domain material just fine, with more manpower then I believe we have, and certainly more experience and training in the fine details of audio production from consumer level equipment. (In fact, they are probably the world's authorities on the subject of producing audiobooks using consumer level equipment in home settings.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course you are correct but, Bro, I would have an area aside from a static WS dancing and singing in 3-D if I could. Better yet, I would have animated people long dead talking out what they have written and especialy where it may be a letter written to another person and a reply to that letter. Way back in high school we had readers of classics taking parts and reading to the audience. Librarians read to children. Sound is just one of our senses. One of my sons is deep into this kind of (animated) technology. I myself have explored sound files and different voices including USA, France, and Britain, male and female, young and elderly. I wrote about things that can be done not about what I know what will not be done on WS. Still, look at the "top 3" and you will encounter those Librivox files with the coded text. Those three are what, according to the list, people have come to WS to learn from. I myself just prefer to edit old books on WSource. I also would not try to promote the famous over the forgotten people or worse--over unknowns. As enough time passes WS will seek out the lesser known people in world history and inculcate them into WS. My point was that the list shows those at the Top 10+ (shades of Dick Clark)whom many people know about and that sound files accompany those at the top. I think that the combination of coded text with the sound is what attracts people. Some just get tired of reading but with sound they may miss a word but with the combination of Librivox and text they can step back and catch whatever they missed. I do hope that there is no problem in just stating some thoughts. I have always had a tendency to explore possibilities and ideas regardless of who or where or how they came to be. Oh, by the way (BTW), Librivox has a limited territory. I own two grand books from "audible.com" company (which Amazon.com purchased.) There are many professional readers. My wife went blind and listens to audiobooks (me too) for free (for the Dept. of the Blind) and those are done by serious professionals. Kind regards, —William Maury Morris II Talk 00:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Final Interview (Solzhenitsyn)

Is this article in the public domain?— Ineuw talk 08:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion. --Aplomb (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Issues log for mediawiki update to 1.19wmf1

Starting a place to record any issues that have arisen in the upgrade to #Mediawiki 1.19. We should look to add an action item against items to determine where the resolution may lie. Hopefully there will be none. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As there have been some purging from the central system, it would be useful for people to annotate their reports whether still existing or resolved. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Side by side broken

The following discussion is closed.


comment it seems to be quite specifically broken in vector, try using monobook skin until this is fixed. I can get it to work in monobook in Chrome.
— billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks to be a javascript error ... bugzilla:34706

Clock gadget missing

The following discussion is closed:

delay in codes updating


Javascript toolbars gone

The following discussion is closed:

see above


  • Both the standard legacy and the custom javascripts toolbars are gone. Interestingly, my commons setup, which is identical to WS, and which was the first to update to 1.19 - there are no editor problems. Should mentioned that I am using Firefox 10.0.2 in Win XP SP3. — Ineuw talk 21:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinks show PR status

[[Page:United_States_Statutes_at_Large_Volume_86.djvu/154|sec. 717]] produces sec. 717

Was this intentional? I kind of don't like how it looks. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd think not; what possible purpose would it serve as the default? AFAICT, the PR quality class sec. 717 is being added somehow. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure, I think that I remember some people tossing around the idea of using the proofread color status for page links to indicate which pages were validated or proofread, but I may be remembering incorrectly. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly intentional, it's useful in particular to show page quality near page numbers on the left of the transcluded text. Here on en.source this is not working because you're using MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js, which doesn't support it (yet). You can see it in action on it.source. I find it very useful to see which pages have to be validated, etc. On it.source we had this page quality indicator since last year (using a special trick), but now it comes automatically on all wikisources, you just need to set the proper css styles, and either abandon PageNumber.js or ask someone to fix it (I can try to fix it, but you need to modify MediaWiki:Proofreadpage pagenum template to include a direct link to the page). Candalua (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. I'd vote to please limit it to embedded page numbers on the left of transcluded pages (if it all). Having every other kind of link pointing back to the Page: namespace reflect its status seems a bit extraneous, extravagant even, in lieu of the PR status bar. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
This can easily be altered with a tiny scrap of Javascript or a default-on gadget. Perhaps it could be made visible by a button in the side bar, or by holding down "ctrl", oe by mouseover, or by "ctrl" and mouseover, etc. Preferences? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
On/off option in gadget is preferred. --Mpaa (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
If we must have this "feature", then definitely a gadget that defaults as Off. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Screw "If..." I never saw any proposal, discussion or trial-run on this matter. If I am mistaken, please point me to it. If none of that took place, then I suggest restoring the previous behavior until it takes place.

Again, if current policy/guideline/practice/put-your-own-cosmically-assigned-axe-to-grind-interpretation-here is one where transcluding less-than-optimal PR'd pages from the Page: namespace to the mainspace, to the best of my knowledge, is, was & has been explicitly "frowned upon" by the community over and over again for some time now, how do "we" justify a rationale for adopting this? "....please don't transclude garbage or unproofed content the mainspace unless its Class A garbage or is almost nearly approaching unproofed content?" Please - let's take a step back and examine the implications here first. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm with you George. The uglification of pages for the sake of bit of information that only a few users will understand does not seem to me to be a good thing. My "if" was simply meant to mean "turn the damn thing off for everyone except for the few editors who (will) find it useful." I have a very easy way of finding out which pages haven't been validated yet—I look at the index page of the work. Like George, I don't expect to find un-proofread pages in Mainspace. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
On closer inspection, it's easier than I thought. All that's happened is that a class has been added to the links, such as "quality1" for "unproofread". This are the same classes that have always been used to provide the colours in the index page and the status bar. Some new development (or even an old one that has just managed to get out of code review) has added them to all page links, not just the index page ones. They are classes like any other and can be styled as such, and, in fact, are beneficial as they add machine-readable semantic information to the page - you can now automatically process page links based on that class. However, the addition means the old CSS rules need tweaking to expect to see a quality class outside the index namespace and status bars. Add something like the code below (fill in bits I have missed) to MediaWiki:common.css (replacing the existing quality stylings). This will cause the links to be coloured when your mouse is over them, not coloured the rest of the time, except in the Index: namespace, when they are always coloured. If the mouseover part is not wanted, just remove the ", .qualityX:hover" from the first 5 lines.
/*Add page link colouring where we want it (index pages, progress bars, on hover) */
.ns-104 .quality0, .ns-106 .quality0, .pr_quality .quality0, .quality0:hover{ background-color: #ddd }
.ns-104 .quality1, .ns-106 .quality1, .pr_quality .quality1, .quality1:hover{ background-color: #ffa0a0 }
.ns-104 .quality2, .ns-106 .quality2, .pr_quality .quality2, .quality2:hover{ background-color: #b0b0ff }
.ns-104 .quality3, .ns-106 .quality3, .pr_quality .quality3, .quality3:hover{ background-color: #ffe867 }
.ns-104 .quality4, .ns-106 .quality4, .pr_quality .quality4, .quality4:hover{ background-color: #90ff90 }

/*Disable elsewhere else*/
.quality0, .quality1, .quality2, .quality3, .quality4{ background-color: transparent }
If people wish to be able to turn all-namespace colours on, then they can have a (default-off) gadget to dynamically restyle quality classes, overriding the above JS. If there is demand, I can provide this based on what people want. If you do it this way around, we can avoid having some JS fiddle that will run on every page load and confuse the styling system. Keeping primary stylings in the CSS file will make it clear what is going on (hopefully).
Edit: add .ns-104 .quality1, to the first 5 lines, so you get styling in the page namespace (page header, edit buttons) too. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 02:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Respectfully, Huh? I don't know what you are seeing but every namespace I checked already has the PR color status of the Page: linked as the background color now - including (forehead smack) the Index: namespace. If your TOC isn't showing colors along the right, its because of the template(s) being used either on the Page: itself or for the single transclusion to the Index: page are breaking the behaviour.

Only the embeded pagenum spans created in transclusion do not have their parent Page:'s status color, so I think you've got it backwards. As Candalua mentioned, the quality class is getting pulled from the HTML a href "link" line after the <pagelist /> creates them. What you want is to be able to "inherit" that href quality class and have it added to whatever classes that already exist (ex. <span class="pagenum" id=".... becomes <span class="pagenum quality4" id="....). There seems to be a way now to extract those and other arguments from traditional html forms, frames, href, img, etc., lines and that is what, I believe, Candalua is driving at by pointing out a change to "direct link" (a href based) is needed to get pagenums to display color status. I also noted that 1.19 incorporated alot of typical common.css "stuff" to the per-skin default(s), making the need for a good refresh of our Common.css almost a must. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know they are coloured everywhere, which is why that CSS removes colours. The qualityX classes are added (as far as I can tell, but I haven't taken apart the ProofreadPage extension to find the exact code yet) on the server side. Currently qualityX means coloured, and the CSS above modifies this to mean not coloured except where you want them (or at least an approximation: index, pages, status bar, on hover if desirable). If you disable Javascript, you still see the colours, so it is not a client-side script that is doing it. Tags using <angle brackets> are parsed by the MW software, not by the browser (hence changed behaviour at a MW upgrade).
The numbers on the side of the page don't get coloured, because they don't have the qualityX classes, because the client-side PageNumbers.js (which is how we put them in) doesn't add them. I'm not talking about these, they are a totally different issue, and are generated by client-side JS. Altering the JS in anyway doesn't affect what the code above does. At most, we'd add the qualityX classes to the page numbers. Start a new section if you want them to have quality indication. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 04:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of how one tries to frame this, my previous statement remains valid (and on point since pagenum coloring was cited as the intentional reasoning behind it). I clearly don't want that mainspace pagenum "feature" enabled as a default - it seems contrary to our best practices. Enabling it in every namespace by default was over-reach on top of over-kill - they should have made it specific to the Page: and Index: namespaces if at all (though its obvious that would only affect, at best, a handful of links in both namespaces combined per work so I don't buy that one bit as any sound reasoning for pushing this into reality). It could have just as easily been optional for the rest of the namespaces I suppose - to what end? I can't imagine one. I'm open to finding ways to resolve this to the best interests for the greatest amount of editors possible but for now I consider this a bug that needs to be reverted/redesigned; not furthered. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
If you look at the code I pointed to below, it is more likely a bug that was put in for testing and was never removed. Before jumping to conclusions of "feature-creep", I asked the author of change whether he knows that is what is happening. It's not like the comment reads "turn on in all namespaces to frustrate enWS users", the comment explicitly says the behaviour we used to have is what is intended. Even if it were deliberate, the CSS above fixes it, and allows flexibility for us to render page links however we like anywhere on wiki, without having to beg for a code review at bugzilla. A class just adds semantic information to an HTML element (that's why it is called a class, not a stylegroup or something), and we can choose locally to interpret that how we please, including not at all. Anyway, let's see what the dev who changed it says before anyone gets too worked up. I am more concerned that we don't know what is intended now, so can't respond properly to it, rather than the possibility that some evil dev dared to add semantic content to our wiki.
Page numbers are still not related. You always have been able to add the qualityX styles to them to get the colours (as you know, the styles work in all namespaces, hence your grievance against adding them to all links). This would be done in PageNumbers.js (or local equivalent, as at it.source). The things we have here is in ProofreadPage_body.php, which is the core of the server-side PP extension. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 12:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Just because I prefer to be a skeptic, even paranoid, does not mean I'm not right (only crazy). see here. The only reason "our" results were so "goofy looking" this time around is because we are somewhat behind the curve on many developmental aspects in comparison with some of the other WS sites. Providing "life support" to dead-end or boutique endeavors isn't helping the situation imo either -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Right about what? I have no idea what the problem is now other than it is a "dead-end boutique endeavour," whatever that means. What is it you want to happen? You don't like the colours on all page links. Right, good. I've gone to see if that was supposed to happen (I'd say probably not, it's a stray "#" in the PHP), and also provided an easy, customisable, site-wide way to remove the colours in the meantime. If you want coloured pagelinks, that is another issue, like I said over and over. I can make them jump up and down, flash and sing a song if you like, but it's still not to do with that bit of PHP. Our wiki is affected the same as any other (frWS has the same) because it is a central issue with the extension code on the server, and clarification has been sought at MW.org. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
OK. I get you don't see a problem. I realize you've built a workaround that makes this change easier to swallow in spite of what I percieve to be problem. You continue to point out how trivial my concern is and I accept the fact I do not know all the ins and outs of coding as well as you do. I do however believe my own eyes and, until I'm shown differently, will continue to believe the "goal" in implementing this was to make that PR-colored page number a reality for some without any process & at the possible expense of others. You don't believe that. I get that too, so I guess there is little else to say on this until something new comes up - I don't want this to spiral into something unintentionally in the meantime (plus there is plenty of other stuff that needs attention besides this). Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Looking at ProofreadPage_body.php (line 445), it would seem that this is not the commented functionality (that return never fires, and so if the NS is not Index, it doesn't break out the of the link colouring stage like you might expect). This is only from a cursory reading of the code, so I might be miles out. The diff where it happened is here, but the code has been updated since then, and I am not sure if this is what happened why we didn't see the effects before, though it may be a component was missing until the 1.19 upgrade and it is now working as written (though perhaps not as intended, unless it really is a conspiracy?). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 04:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Candalua, may I ask what it.source uses instead of the central Pagenumbers.js at oldwikisource? I'd like to know more about the alternative systems that you have over there, as they seem quite advanced. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 01:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Here, here - I left rant over on oldwikisource's talk page awhile back pointing out why recent upgrades make dynamic layouts problematic in its current form, so if there is a way to scrap it, I'd like to hear it too. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
When using lists of pages to be proofread as is done HERE, the PR color would be very helpful if the page status update would be faster. Unfortunately, this seems to be affected by the server, so I must still rely on the Firefox' Wired-marker Add-on to indicate proofread pages. Thus, this is not a very helpful addition.— Ineuw talk 18:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
If you mean the lag between saving a page and the page being shaded a different colour, then purging the page should refresh them if the servers are under pressure. However, if what caused the site-wide colouring is reversed (as it was very likely not changed deliberately) this colouring (and particularly the classes that add the status information to the HTML) will disappear again, leaving you with no easy way to get the proofread status of pages from outside the page/index namespaces. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Inductiveload, I know what you mean and am aware that if this feature is gone, I will have to return using Wired-Marker. Interestingly, the Wire-Marker method also slows FF down after an hour or so of editing because the SQLlite tables used by FF balloon when data is appended. Thus, I compact the FF tables using CCleaner which offers this feature externally. I have not yet tried to use SQLite manager extension which also compacts the tables.— Ineuw talk 22:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Annotation: Clearing the server cache had no effect on THIS PAGE The first 4 links were proofread hours ago and they still show Not proofread on my screen. If anyone sees this differently at the time of this signing, please let me know.— Ineuw talk 05:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I did a purge on your page and now the 4 links are yellow. (BTW, on it.source we have a gadget for adding the "purge" button, maybe you want to import it, sometimes it's very useful :-) Candalua (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

InductiveLoad: currently on it.source we use just a very basic version of pagenum template coupled with the css styles ".quality1", ".quality2"... in our common.css (but I'm going to change them, it will not be ".quality1" but something like "span.pagenumber a.quality1" and so on, so that we use the "qualityX" classes only in certain places). Before this update, we were using a script that runs in Page namespace and adds an invisible span containing the pagequality value, and then in ns0 there's another script that extracts all these spans from the transcluded pages and shows the corresponding icon near page numbers. But it was really "a terrible hack", so we're going to dismiss it now that the pagequality class comes automatically with the link. Candalua (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see. You have the pagenumbers generated directly by the pagenum template system message, and the styles come from the extension with this new development, no extra processing. If the extension code were to be changed back, you will lose that styling and be in the same boat as Ineuw: no proofread status information in the mainspace.
For anyone interested in comparison, here is how it works at enWS: the pagenums are generated by MediaWiki:Proofreadpage pagenum template, just as at itWS. However, they are spans with no text (so not rendered) and the pagenum in the attributes. They exist embedded in the text at the start of every page. oldwikisource:MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js then runs, and extracts the information from these spans' attributes. Using this data, the locations of the page numbers are calculated and a new div is constructed, outside the text-wrap container, which hold the page numbers, as well as the highlighting which you can see when you run your mouse over a pagenumber. We have no styling on our page numbers as we don't get the server to generate a link, so the class is never applied. However, we do have the mouseover page range highlighting. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 10:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, not exactly: if the extension code is changed, we will revive our script and we will still have proofread status informations. But why should it be changed back? It's just a css class that every subdomain is free to use or not, I see no need to remove it. Candalua (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
First, the entire pupose of the Page: and Index: namespaces is to perform Proofreading away from the mainspace & prior to any transclusion. The argument, in a nutshell & moving forward, has always been not have users landing in mainspace welcomed by sub-standard works nor tie up the mainspace with dozens and dozens of edits in hopes of reaching the quality on par with something that could of been uploaded and proofread page by page. All this does is blur the distinction laid out in our practices/policies, encourage slightly familar users to deviate from these practices & policies and confuse new users to the point where thay don't bother learning the policy or adhering to the practice.
Second, nobody here proposed, discussed or tested such a change. Its a happy bug or welcomed mistake if anything. This needs to be fix/reverted back to the status quo then redesigned so only the Index & Page namespaces have this feature by default with other namespaces available as the community sees fit once hashed out. Ineuw & the PSM folks don't have any list in any mainspace - he has them on User: or project-related spaces (is this time to enable Project: space?) - so that is not contrary to the before mentioned principle/policy either. Fortunately I haven't seen any background colors in the Category: space (yet) but its definately on in the Template: space (bad). Its a toss-up whether or not Portal:, Author: and anything I may have left out should have this as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I don't have the gift of clarity. If you don't want to show pagequality, you just need to set in your Common.css something like this:
.ns-0 .quality0, 
.ns-0 .quality1, 
.ns-0 .quality2,
.ns-0 .quality3,
.ns-0 .quality4 { background-color: transparent; }

Candalua (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Classes do not equal colouring, they just permit it to be set when you want. You can unset it wherever you like. For example, you could hide in mainspace, have on hover in userspace, show in page/index space, flash on and off in template space and spin around in Portal space, but only when in a certain place. If you have the classes, you can do whatever you like, at a site-level, gadget-level and user-level. If you don't have them, you have no choice. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the page range highlighting is cute: but sometimes it seems to have problems, for example here the last page number doesn't appear, and here on fr.source it shows the first page break at the wrong place (I don't know if it happens only on fr or elsewhere too). Anyway, if you want to keep PageNumbers.js and have pagequality, you can add a link to the page in the pagenum template (and maybe make it invisible by putting display:none in the sorrounding span), and then I can try to edit PageNumbers.js to reuse the pagequality class generated by the link. Candalua (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The highlight is not useful, imo, because it is rarely exact over page-breaks across paragraphs, when the remnant lands across a wikilink, it breaks it (frequently in the category bar) and, as mentioned, it frequently adds to the disappearance of the last embedded page link. The highlight feature should be completely removed at best, gadgetized at worst. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I personally see nothing wrong with allowing the classes into all namespaces, as we can style them to show only where wanted, and then they are there for the taking, even if they don't change anything visually. Adding semantic hints to links can only help. At worst, we just ignore them. Others disagree very strongly (see the big thread above). However, the code revision (part of a large overhaul) that allowed them into all namespaces may not have been deliberate, so we could do with cleaning that up and documenting it. You can talk to the person who did it here. I'm just saying that as an undocumented and probably unintended (but not necessarily detrimental) change, it could change again. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course "allowing" it only to turn it on and off here and there makes technical sense but again that only after the fact. I don't think the .css solution is unreasonable - just another sad result of piss poor planning and due to another instance of what I call pushed feature creep. Its laughable to stress one practice for others in general then find ways to subvert it - even on a personal level imo - but this is for the community to decide (I personally don't think we should support this but I'm accustomed to being in the minority - have at it). Nevertheless, there should be consensus here, not just corrections that mask an issue by making folks ignorant of knowing that an issue exists with those corrections.

For the same reasons we are currently stuck with one butt-ugly and two so-so dynamic layouts, quirky jerky highlights and no inline pagenums is that someone thought not to check with the community here first in comming up with proposed changes, made the changes based on their own home site's (if not just) personal opinion then eventually moved on in life - leaving further development retarded by his absence. Inductiveload's concern that this change was not deliberate seems to be well warranted given the history of "sloppy" developement practices when it comes to the red-headed step-child around here called Wikisource. I wish to avoid such pitfalls and hope to work in reasolving both matters sooner rather than later. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As for the adding the styles, I was thinking about that - if we added a link to the MediaWiki message, pagenumbers would work without JS enabled too (good to have as much functionality without JS, for visitors who don't activate JS), and then we can make PageNumber.js optional so those who don't like it can get rid of it. I do see the last link (20) on that enWS page, by the way. It used to be missing in some cases (multiple ranges per page), but that was fixed a while ago. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I propose modularisation of page numbers. Comment at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Page_numbers, to keep this issue separate. Styling and pagenumbers are not the same thing, though one can use the other. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 12:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

A commit was submitted to Gerrit to revert the behavior to the previous behavior (no color for links outside of the Index namespace) as it is obvious that this change was due to a programming mistake. The discussion above shows that this question is difficult and should be discussed with other Wikisources as well as with people from the tech staff. If we all agree to have colors in all namespaces, a ticket should be created in Bugzilla. As mentioned above, even in this case, it will still be possible to "hide" the colors in specific contextes by tweaking the css. Zaran (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

{{nop}} not working

This page is broken in FireFox 10.0.2 as well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Same here under IE. I do note that nop seems to be working fine when no block, table, center, etc., wrapping is in play (via a template) at the same time. When used at the end of a simple last paragraph on one page to separate the next paragraph on the following page - it produces the same effect it always did when the range of pages are transcluded to the mainspace. Can anyone verify the same? -- 01:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey wait a second - that poem was doubled up with single non-wrapping lines acting as paragraphs. I don't think Nop ever produced a break as well as line feed under that scenario. Check it again now with the doubled-up spacing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Well that sure did change for the worse.... Nop does not appear to be working in both complex and simple applications (both IE6 & 8; monobook & vector). -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Confirm, partially. Nop is not not working to sepatate paragraphs for me. For example: Buttered_Side_Down/What_She_Wore#47 doesn't have a line break after "indignation in his voice". Firefox 10.0.2, Linux. Working as expected in Chromium 16.0.912.77. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
It can be fixed by adding an extra blank line above {{nop}} like so. Not that we want to do this ... John Vandenberg (chat) 00:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
As a temporary measure I have added an empty DIV element to {{nop}}. I don't know whether this will break something else.. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
AS a note, I also tried an alternate means (successfully) to hack this. For testing, I think that we need to be on the lookout for where may have been used in tables, or where we have used a combination terminating template /s /e pair to specially format the end and the next start of a page. I know that I have seen issues with spanning <div> that break tables, whereas a spanning <p> didn't. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Still seeing issues: Love's mystery in Chrome; also broken in Safari. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
You had a space after the {{nop}}, removal has fixed that issue. Consequences of a hack versus consequences of a different hack.<shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 04:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the change to {{nop}} (or maybe it's the original update?) is making it produce an extra newlines when it shouldn't. I've detailed the problem with an example here; but basically if you have a {{nop}} on a line on its own between two paragraphs of text it produces an extra <br /> between the paragraphs. - Htonl (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I changed it back to the first div solution. It seems to satisfy the wikicode in more instances/applications than the line-feed include-only fix. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Pretty much stinks for poetry (see here where the page breaks)... I fixed a whole section ("The Fallen") of the TWP the other day as a result. The issue with poetry arises when a stanza breaks between two pages. Normally, all you have to do is:
But as I climbed on high,<br />
Toward the forbidding sky<br />
Perfection seemed to fly;

{{nop}}

Now what is required is: 

But as I climbed on high,<br />
Toward the forbidding sky<br />
Perfection seemed to fly;


{{nop}}

I hesitate to "fix" the hundreds of pages it would be necessary to "fix"... Should I just let the error be for now until the issue is resolved? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I would leave it alone for now, else you might have to go back and "un-fix". JeepdaySock (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Right you are. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

In pages with transclusions, the links to the transcluded pages are missing on my IE8

The following discussion is closed.


Also the three standard formatting options for displaying transcluded text in the typical consecutive page presentation format that were in the commands margin (the one that shows on every page) are gone in my IE8.

I thought the first one was such an obvious omission that it had to be one of my preferences that was reset. But I looked, and unless I missed something, both those features are missing in IE8. ResScholar (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I Saw the same w/IE6 before but not under Vector skin (& after that full clleaning w/reboot). In fact, Display Options and everything else with an arrow are now collapsed and need a click to open to view the choices. The embedded page numbers (from the pagelist on the Index: page) still display as before; the stupid highlight thingy is always out-of-whack w/ the actual content and toggling hide or show page-numbers still doesn't work like always. IE8 is a different story now - I'm having trouble fulling loading any type of page under it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Just started working again for no apparent reason - all skins and versions. Jinx. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I immediately rebooted and crossed my fingers. It didn't come back. I closed and opened the browser twice. Then the second transcluded page I went to, the transclusion links appeared but without page numbers. I went to another transcluded page. The transclusion links showed page numbers and the |> Display options returned! Good thing I crossed my fingers, huh?! (There is obviously some kind of learning curve involved in the interfacing of browser and website (or squid).) ResScholar (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Messed up author's name with header=1

Transcluded chapters that use <pages ... header=1 /> have a malformed author's name, e.g. Eskimo Life/Chapter 3. This looked fine a year ago, and still looks fine in the Swedish and Norwegian Wikisource (see interwiki links for that chapter), but is messed up now in en.wikisource. I'm not sure if it changed in 1.19 or earlier. --LA2 (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not 1.19 related - we didn't follow the all-div-based header scheme and all its bells & whistles like some other language WS sites did so our Proofreadpage header template, among others, only features a single author name for the author field input value. Sorry. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Confirm. This is something to do with the parser for the "pages" tag. It is trying to read the author from the index page and somehow, the whole text including both author links (working) are placed inside another author link. It could be that this is a general problem with multiple authors on the indexes of works using header=1? So single author links work, Do you know of a work with single author links using header=1? This could be a parser error that has always existed, but somehow previous MW versions managed to digest it. I'll take a look at the code that does this if the problem persists. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Some observations...
  • More than one name for the author field on the index page never worked when calling the Mediawiki header version to the mainspace (This don't work in the plain-old header template either - that's why we have an override_author parameter for multiple authors, etc., No?)

    Override_author is also not "given" in the Mediawiki header. I think using header=1 author="new piped input" in the Pages command line should be the recommended way to deviate from the 1 {{{author}}} to 1 author normal usage in the absence of {{{override_author}}}. Regardless, mo matter what I tried to get around this, it always injected either the value and/or the behaviour from whatever is present on the Index: page.

  • all the parameters in the Index: template use capital first-letters while the Mediawiki template's parameters are all lower-cased. Not sure why but better to point that out.
  • imho, sub-pages that are not stand-alone works should look to the basepage to extract most of these repetative header values rather than pulling them from the Index: namespace over and over again.
-- George Orwell III (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I have realised what it (probably) is. If you put a wikilink into the author field, you used to get a repeatable error that was used to trigger a "link hack" to detect the situation and avoid wrapping in [[Author:....]], which gives the same result as using override_author. Pages doing this are in Category:Pages using the author field hack. It seems this detection no longer works in MW 1.19, and any page with a link in an author/translator field will have the nested link mis-parsed.
I have adjusted MediaWiki:Proofreadpage header template to insert the fields into the override parameters to avoid this. There are still many pages which need manually fixing in that cat, but that can probably be done by bot.
This problem might actually be a benefit, because if link hacks no longer work, we can fix them all and remove the convoluted detection-and-workaround code from the header template, which will greatly simplify it, as well as enforcing the "no wikilinks in the normal author field" idea, which has not so far been obvious, as a link hack was coerced into working through dirty tricks in the template, rather than good practice by editors. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 02:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
It's very simple and works very fine in the Norwegian and Swedish Wikisource. --LA2 (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. The workarounnd will have to do until we revamp our header template(s) to mirror those being used on WS sister-sites. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
All the pages with "link hacks" have been fixed, and the header template amended to no longer cater to this case, since there are no pages that use it, and a link hack should never be used except for legacy pages. If you want to use your own link in author or translator, use the override field, otherwise you'll get the same junk this issue was reported with. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Authors look great now, thanks! --LA2 (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you trim it out of header/sandbox & header/dyn as well? -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Missing <reflist> missing

We have never had that. We would need to import the warning from enWP. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
From a quick look at enWp, we might have an interest in w:MediaWiki:Cite error refs without references and w:MediaWiki:Cite error group refs without references among others. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Special:IndexPages

I noticed that the bar graphs for my works in Special:IndexPages were out of date, and so I purged the Index pages (by adding ?action=purge to the URL), but to my surprise this made the bar graphs blank. See here. This is reported as bug 34821. I'm not sure if this is related to 1.19, but it is broken now, and used to work a year ago. Apparently, ThomasV, who was the only developer of the ProofreadPage extension and hard to reach before, has now completely left the project. What can we do? --LA2 (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It occurs when there is a comma in the title. Zaran will try to fix this bug. Pyb (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Problem solved. Purging the Index page again will force a re-computation of the number of pages in each category and will fix the bar graphs for the broken index pages. Zaran (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about that - still no status bars on the previously linked search. I'm betting you meant apostrophe and not comma earlier based on similar findings.
I also noticed the transclusion checker tool suffers from something similar if not the same issue. Compare the first link's generated URL when clicked on using the TSDT icon at the top of the Index: page vs. a manually modified URL:
scratch the above - was able to fix this by dropping the urlencode wrapped on the magic FULLPAGENAME word and just used FULLPAGENAMEE by itself instead.
The encoding of a simple apostrophe character certainly seems to play a role in all this. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User defined toolbar messed up by the latest mw software update

This was posted earlier at the end of this section and moved here. After editing in Wikipedia and the Commons, I noticed that this problem is not unique to Wikisource, which means that that it's related to the software update.— Ineuw talk 07:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Clock-purge works fine, but I ended up with another strange occurrence where the WS toolbar is split by my custom Vector.js in the editor. Half the standard buttons are on the left and half on the right with my custom bar in the middle. If someone can fix this I would be most grateful. Earlier, I created an empty Common.js. Could this be the cause? — Ineuw talk 05:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded two images here to demonstrate the problem. File:WS custom toolbar position.jpg and File:V1.19 Edit buttons source code in FF 10.png which shows how the standard buttons code is split by the custom toolbar code. If anyone can fix it, I would show my gratitude by shipping them fresh Canadian snow. Why fix it? Well, I am an old dog and and very slow to learn new tricks and this new trick slows my editing.— Ineuw talk 21:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Your toolbar code is executing as soon as it loads, which could be what is causing it to insert itself into the middle of the bar. I suggest wrapping it all like this to prevent it running before the page load is completed:
$(document).ready( function(){

//your code here
});
This should load the toolbars only after the normal page elements are complete. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Inductiveload. I've implemented the addition, and I am sure that I've made no mistake as it's perfectly clear. Unfortunately there is no change.— Ineuw talk 00:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is the solution for the new toolbar Tpt (talk) 18:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
if($.inArray(mw.config.get('wgAction'), ['edit', 'submit']) !== -1 && mw.user.options.get('usebetatoolbar')) {
  mw.loader.using('ext.wikiEditor.toolbar', function() {
    $(function() {
      //You add your buttons here
    });
  });
}
Thanks. I tried this as well but it eliminated all my custom buttons. :(.— Ineuw talk 23:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Still not working

Returning to this unsolved issue, for the first edit of the day the toolbar displays properly, but subsequently it reverts to the old problem. I think that Inductiveload's analysis is correct, as his solution is implemented but without any effect, so I was wondering if there is a way to increase the delay before my custom toolbar loads?— Ineuw talk 23:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


Paragraph ignore

Normally OCR paragraphs automatically ignore (follow the preceding line without a line break). Which was the case on Page:Latin_for_beginners_(1911).djvu/330 until I did some formatting. Now the preexisting paragraphs are having impact. It is translating to the Latin for beginners (1911)/Latin-English vocabulary also, so not limited to page scan. for reason unknown, the pages I have not touched don't have the issue. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between LF and CR characters. Both look the same in the editing box, but there are different behaviours in transclusion. I find it easiest to remove them all in paragraphs and just keep the double CR for paragraph endings. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
My guess is that you're using a colon to indent individual lines because that appears to be the same as a paragraph tag with a indent style of some value. Actually, using the colon in wikicode creates a defined list in the underlying html with definitions as a sub-division of that tags (sub-divisions that happen to be hard-coded with an even greater left-margin than its parent plus the parent inserts an automatic closing tag when it detects a variation from one sub division to the next). So what you're getting in the HTML is:
<p>colō</p>
<dl>
<dd>COlo, -ere, colui, cultus, cultivate., till;honor., worship ; devote one^s self to</dd>
<dd>columna, -ae, f . column, pillar</dd>
<dd>com- (col-, con-, cor-, co-), a prefix,</dd>
</dl>
<p>together, with, or intensifying the meaning of the root word</p>
<dl>
<dd>coma, -ae, f. hair</dd>
<dd>comes, -itis, m. and f. [com-, together,</dd>
</dl>

colō

COlo, -ere, colui, cultus, cultivate., till;honor., worship ; devote one^s self to
columna, -ae, f . column, pillar
com- (col-, con-, cor-, co-), a prefix,

together, with, or intensifying the meaning of the root word

coma, -ae, f. hair
comes, -itis, m. and f. [com-, together,
When what you really want is...
<p>colō</p>
<dl>
<dt>Colo,</dt><dd>-ere, colui, cultus, cultivate, till; honor, worship; devote one's self to</dd>
<dt>columns,</dt><dd>-ae, f. column, pillar,</dd>
<dt>com-</dt><dd>(col-, con-, cor-, co-), a prefix, together, with, or intensifying the meaning of the root word</dd>
<dt>coma,</dt><dd>-ae, f. hair</dd>
<dt>comes,</dt><dd>-itis, m. and f. [com-, together,</dd>
</dl>

colō

Colo,
-ere, colui, cultus, cultivate, till; honor, worship; devote one's self to
columns,
-ae, f. column, pillar,
com-
(col-, con-, cor-, co-), a prefix, together, with, or intensifying the meaning of the root word
coma,
-ae, f. hair
comes,
-itis, m. and f. [com-, together,
... or this...
<p>colō</p>
<dl>
<dd><b>Colo</b>, -ere, colui, cultus, cultivate, till; honor, worship; devote one's self to</dd>
<dd><b>columns</b>, -ae, f. column, pillar,</dd>
<dd><b>com-</b> (col-, con-, cor-, co-), a prefix, together, with, or intensifying the meaning of the root word</dd>
<dd><b>coma</b>, -ae, f. hair</dd>
<dd><b>comes</b>, -itis, m. and f. [com-, together,</dd>
</dl>

colō

Colo, -ere, colui, cultus, cultivate, till; honor, worship; devote one's self to
columns, -ae, f. column, pillar,
com- (col-, con-, cor-, co-), a prefix, together, with, or intensifying the meaning of the root word
coma, -ae, f. hair
comes, -itis, m. and f. [com-, together,
→You will never get smooth line heights and uniformity using the wiki-code's colon shortcut because the opening and closing <dl> tags are auto-added at page start or end. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if it is related to what you describe here, but the other day, when I tried the Chrome browser, some pages that I proofread suddenly had doubled every newline. So I went back to Firefox, where I have never seen that problem. For dictionaries like this one, I use normal paragraphs with a blank line before each headword (no colon, no <dt>, no <dd>). --LA2 (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Proof reading this is hard enough without trying to insert HTML markup on top of it. As I move through the proofread, I will be removing the print line returns. Just pointing out that what used to happen is different then what happens now. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't saying switch to HTML markup - I was just using it to illustrate the nuances now seen as a result of (?) recent changes. It seems now all block elements, including [additional] noinclude tags, force an end tag to be assumed & added and thus, an errant paragraph tag is opened for the next line instead of being auto-wrapped with the previous line. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

New logo for (Marathi) Wikisource

Marathi Wikisource logo

I've just noticed this in the Wikipedia Signpost. Marathi Wikisource might be getting their own logo. Apparently there is some dissatisfaction with the iceberg that I've never noticed before. Gerard Meijssen has a blog post about it. It doesn't really affect English Wikisource but it is intersting to make note of it. Personally, I don't think a pot of water (or punctured globe) really evokes a library or Wikisource, although the similarity to the Wikipedia logo might help create the association in people's minds. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

An interpretation: With using the Wikipedia logo and recognizing their scope, the puzzle is only the surface of the sources within? Or, something with water being a source of life and with respect to the project scopes, Wikisource is the source of Wikipedia? I don't know; it looks nice. Not a very important matter, but I would support a change. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I find it far more attractive than an iceberg which always reminds me of the sinking of the Titanic. I certainly support its use. — Ineuw talk 19:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
That logo is an interesting concept. If I could conjure up a new Wikisource logo by sheer force of will, it would somehow illustrate the digitization process. For example, a book with the left half physical, the right half stylized, with a lightning bolt dividing the two halves. The lighting bolt of course representing the primal force of nature that is the Wikisourcerer. --Eliyak T·C 05:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I would be shocked if the Wikimedia Foundation were to allow this kind of language-level fragmentation of visual identity. Hesperian 10:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Voltage source symbol
The multitude of names is already confusing. Latin Wikisource is called Vicifons and the Russian is called Wikiteka. And have you ever tried to explain the difference between Wikipedia and Wikimedia to people outside of our core community? If it were me, all names except Wikipedia would be scrapped. I'd turn WMF into Wikipedia Foundation, Wikisource into Wikipedia Library, Wikibooks into Wikipedia Manuals, Wiktionary into Wikipedia Dictionary, and so on. --LA2 (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I like it... Reminds me of the woman at the well (drawing water, so to speak, from the Source of "living water") & John 4:13, etc.... But that might be too religious a connotation for most, I dunno!? Hesperian, what does "language-level fragmentation of visual identity" even mean? Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, the logo of Marathi Wikisource suggests that we have enormous knowledge and information available in the history (and which is copy right free), with the Marathi Wikisource project, we are pouring and giving this knowledge to all the world which is completely FREE. This design has been finalized after exploring lot many options by the Marathi community people and the graphic design is been made by members from IIT, Bombay. We had also discussion of this topic in various forums and they have happily supported for this logo. I can share that conversation on email if required. This design is been appreciated by many experts in including Amol Palekar the famous producer, director and actor in Hindi and Marathi Cinema and theater....Mvkulkarni23 (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with most of the comments above, especially LA2's. I will note the first thing I thought of was Vicifons, which refers to a spring or fountain - a (mental) symbol that I like far better than the strange iceberg which many newcomers don't recognize as an iceberg at all and always requires a lot of historical "Gutenberg" -> "Sourceberg" -> ("Wikisource" + iceberg symbol) explanation that is completely irrelevant to what we are and begs the question, but why? What exactly does an iceberg have to do with a source anyway.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
As I said years ago when we were deciding on the current logo, Wikisource is basically a library - I think we should stay away from any water-based logo (whether an iceberg or a water pitcher) as the last thing you want in a library is a bunch of water damaging the books. Angr 18:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Lol, that is true; I guess the ideal logo would be one which requires little or no explanation. I guess the question becomes "what would best represent a library?" We go past printed works, but I guess an image of someone reading or writing is at least familiar enough. I've always liked this image as a concept for wikisource. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I like that one too, as do la.ws, fr.ws, and br.ws - they all have it on their mainpages. WMF might not like it though, it's far from copyrightable, which itself is a good thing - but I have found in the outside world of the greater WMF we are considered extremists about free, especially about liberating sources - maybe we need a symbol with a source that someone is trying to restrict through yet another data copyright or access license to represent our concept of free. ;-) I really do like this one though.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Hesperian's comment of March 8 above, that any language or regional specific logo should not be considered. This includes File:Accueil scribe.png because it is occidental, eurocentric and religious. If we consider changing the logo, we must look for a logo that's universally accepted by all Wikisource communities. — Ineuw talk 21:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
That logo looks like a chamber pot. Whatever they are dumping out is obviously not wanted. —William Maury Morris II Talk 06:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Portal:English Statutes

This could do with considerable cleanup.

Eventually it's hoped that every single English Statute that suitable scans exist for could be included. It's noted some of those already transcribed are NOT on legislation.gov.uk as that site only appears to hold material still 'in force' in relation to the older Statutes concerned.

I also note the following :

  • There are some anomalies between the dating/bbumbering given by Ruffhead (which I'm using currently) and other sources.
  • Wikisources own lists of Parliamentry Acts give a Short title for some Chapters, (but these lists don't seem to record which of the numerous governmental or former HMSO/TSO documents they are taken from). I've tried to insert the appropriate short titles into the Table given at the front of the Ruffhead edition, but would appreciate someone with access to suitable sources checking my insertions in this area.
  • Ideally (and to get the short titles) it may be worth asking appropriate Wikimedia UK or the GLAM contacts to ask the National Archives (or the Law Commission), to release the full Chronological Table of the Statutes (which was last revised around 2000) online, It would from the perspective of confiriming dates and titles for linking easier.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't this duplicate Portal:Acts of the Parliament of England/United Kingdom? I can't see any difference in definition between "Statute" and "Act". Anyway, that list of Acts appears to have originally come from Wikipedia and back in the old days before providing references or sources was the norm. Finding the source for the short titles may be difficult or even impossible. Someone could ask Wikimedia UK (I've met some of them, they might be able to do something but I don't know if they have any contacts at the Archives). This request should probably be made on the Wikimedia UK website. In the mean time, we should probably use the titles as given in whatever sources we use. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
There are some gaps in the page you link to.. At present what links from the page I created were the ones I couldn't find in your link. Also there are some nominaly Statutes of unclear date (temp incert.) which are NOT accessible from the portals.. (In other sources, these tend to be incldued after those of Edward the Second. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Statutes are Acts, like Statutory Rules are Regulations. If there are gaps, please feel welcome to fill the gaps, no need to recreate and duplicate portals. In fact, I would think that it would be bad to duplicate such. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I've reworked my portal so it redirects anything from Edward III onward to the existing Portal. I've also put in some Pre Parlimentary Charters and Measures , based on a list at English Wikipedia . Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Formatting of Stautes at Large

The_Statutes_at_Large_(Ruffhead)/Volume1/Magna_Carta

It would be much appreciated if someone could come up with a template (or dynamic layout) for doing the side-by-side approach , I'm currently doing with tables.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't tried it yet, but have a look at Category:Column formatting templates. In particular {{Multicol}}. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Also consider {{side by side}}, which I mentioned on irc. That has been used by inductiveload in customized form for parallel poems here: Quatrains of Omar Khayyam (tr. Whinfield, 1883)/Quatrains 1-100.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I've also just found {{Translation table}}, which will even put the line down the middle for you. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure {{Translation table}} is the right idea here. That's intended for wikisource translations rather than multi-column works and it perpetuates the use of tables for formatting.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 07:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Bugzilla:35925 tracking bug

Doug has had a great idea and started up a tracking bug to link in all outstanding issues for the Wikisources. Nice job Doug. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it smiley, I had been thinking about it for a while but got a nudge yesterday on IRC, so I finally made it happen.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 11:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

[ page ]

Speeches

Started a conversation at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Speeches_.26_manifesto, there is potential for this discussion to have a large impact on content across Wikisource. Jeepday (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Problem with {{scans}} template

Hello all,

I’ve created a template to show the indexes list of scans existing on Wikisource. The result is satisfactory with {{scans|Shakespeare}}:Open book Scans or with {{scans|Dickinson}}: Open book Scans. It gives an error answer with {{scans|Montaigne}}: Open book Scans or {{scans|Rabelais}}: Open book Scans or {{scans|Verne}}: Open book Scans where I see an answer immediately replaced by an error message. Can somebody explain where the problem is (and solve it)? --Zyephyrus (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the message:

Livre Pages NA - Pb 1 2 3 Total Function arrayPrototypeUniq() { var result = []; for (var i = 0; i < this.length; ++i) { var current = this[i]; if (result.indexOf(current) == -1) { result.push(current); } } return result; } Function arrayPrototypeUniq() { var uniques = []; var result = []; for (var i = 0; i < this.length; ++i) { var current = this[i]; if (uniques.indexOf(current) == -1) { uniques.push(current); } else { result.push(current); } } return result; } Function arrayChunk(size) { if (typeof size != "number" size <= 0) { return [this]; } var result = []; var current; for (var i = 0; i < this.length; ++i) { if (i % size == 0) { current = []; result.push(current); } current.push(this[i]); } return result; }

It works now: I had to disable the index gadget in my preferences. Billinghurst and Doug, thanks! --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Help:Editing poetry

I know you've all got your own stuff going on right now, but is there anyone out there who would like to help me revise/update the Help:Editing poetry page? I am reticent to make direct changes to the page myself, but if someone has more gumption than I do (you don't even have to like my way of formatting poetry), and is willing to take the heat from other steadfast Users who may argue over jots & tittles, I would be much obliged! For this purpose, I have created a temporary "sandbox" of sorts at Londonjackbooks/Editing poetry. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox or discussing and testing the edits on the talk page sounds quite appropriate. Alternatively make the changes on the page, and put some diffs up asking for opinions. You are one of our more diligent editors in that space, and you know what works. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I merely follow in some good footprints around here. Different sizes, shapes & depths... but good :) AKA Londonjackbooks 16:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A single reference spanning 4 pages

Can someone please show me the error of my ways with the last 4 pages of Byron's The Corsair? 3.5 pages are a single footnote. I tried half-heartedly to use ref-follow (incorrectly), but feel a much more pressing need to slice up some watermelon right now... Thanks, AKA Londonjackbooks 17:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You can use the normal name/follow system. Name the first ref and then they all follow that one, like so:
<ref name="p328">Foo</ref>
<ref follow="p328">Bar</ref>
<ref follow="p328">Baz</ref>
<ref follow="p328">Spam</ref>
Which results in a single ref reading "Foo Bar Baz Spam". I've transcluded your four pages to my sandbox for reference. Hope the watermelon lived up to your expectations! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Tasted like summer... but not sweet enough for the trouble of having to de-seed. As for the ref-name/ref-follow: Obliged, sir... I tried a couple things, but didn't try to ref back to the original page (328) on all three pages. Thought about it, but then gave up. AKA Londonjackbooks 19:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
To note that it is not specifically referencing back to the original name, it is creating of a consistent name so it knows which refs to concatenate. I started using page numbers ages ago as 1) it was easy, 2) it allowed me to remember which page I was joining together and 3) it was easy (see 1). — billinghurst sDrewth 02:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: User:Mattwj2002/temp2

Am I permitted to empty this page which lists ~1,800 links to pages in the PSM project Page namespace? The page was last updated on October 2009. — Ineuw talk 08:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

How about we just hide the list of links for the time being so you can keep working and ask the user directly if it is OK to permanently remove/delete all those links? -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I am in occasional contact with Matt and will ask him. Please don't waste time on hiding them. — Ineuw talk 17:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikisource in Hebrew is bombarding my site with 404 errors.

My site, www.tanach.us = www.tanakh.us has been hit by thousands of 404 errors from

<http://he.wikisource.org/w/index.php>

using a broken call:

/Fonts/SBL_Hbrw.ttf) format("truetype"

presumably from an erroneous font selection process. I have permission to use the SBL_Hbrw font under certain conditions.

Please fix your code and fix it to take the Hebrew font from someone else.

Chris Kimball Transcriber

This is not really something English Wikisource can remedy, so I have copied your post to Hebrew Wikisource. I don't know what is using SBL_Hbrw.ttf nor why. The Wikimedia fonts for Hebrew are Miriam_CLM.ttf and Taamey_Frank_CLM.ttf (see {{lang}}). He.ws should be able to help. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying us Adam. The problem was apparently rooted to a link that was added to our CSS page a couple of days ago. It's now been fixed. Dovi (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Statutes At Large

It's going well on a later volume so far :

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Statutes_at_Large_%28Ruffhead%29/Volume_9/Doncaster:_Small_Debts,_Lighting,_etc._Act_1763

What I'd like though is for someone to assist in tidying up headers, and adding a 'meta-data' law box (which gives additional data such as repeals not mentioned in the original and so forth)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Terms of Use update

As you may be aware, given the banner notice, Wikimedia has updated its Terms of Use. This updated version will become effective on May 25, 2012, and can be reviewed here. To find out more, please visit wmf:New Terms of use/en. Thanks. :) --Mdennis (WMF) (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Standardizing the two most widely used font sizes of PSM

This is an explanation of two related posts in the Scriptorium, Proposal to modify the {{fsx}} template and PSM maintenance in Page:ns.

The basic concern of this editor was, that regardless of the font size specified in the {{fs}}, and {{{fsx}} templates, the line height remained the same, or nearly the same, and contrasted poorly with the normal text. Since the existing templates could not be modified, it was decided to create two new templates to resolve the issue of line heights for the two most used font size variations and employ a bot to replace the old references.

In the process of examining the text, Mpaa discovered numerous variations in the font sizes applied in the same context, and after some detailed discussion on the size variations, two sample pages were created to examine font size changes and line height relationships:

  • This page lists the font sizes between 100% and 68% in descending order.
  • This page demonstrates the line height differences between the old and new templates.
  • Font size for PSM image descriptions is 85%. This was always the standard font size, but the new {{fs85}} template reduces the line height from 1.5em to 1.1em and it significantly improves the appearance of multi-line descriptions.
  • Font size for blocks of text (apart from image descriptions), in the ranges between 83% to 93% are to be standardized to 90% by replacing old templates with {{fs90}}, which reduces the line height from 1.5em to 1.2em.
  • Exceptions are poems which vary between 100%, 90% or 85%. In case of 90% and 85%, please use the corresponding templates.
  • Font sizes less than 83%, or greater than 93% are not affected.

I hope this clarifies the issue. — Ineuw talk 03:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)



  • Addendum: The ongoing examination of the font size variations in PSM, necessitated the addition of a third template {{fs75}} for 75% font size and the line height of 1em. — Ineuw talk 20:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

English Statutes

This needs tidying up and Wikifying - Any takers?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Portal:English_Statutes

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct placement of {{nop}}

In circumstances where the page text needs to end with <section end> and {{nop}}, what is the proper order of code placement? — Ineuw talk 01:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on a quick test, it seems to me that {{nop}} is in fact not necessary in this case, since the section tag performs the same function. If it is necessary, I think it should come after the section tag. --Eliyak T·C 03:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It didn't even occur to me to test if <section end> is an inline or paragraph style tag. This makes me ask if the section tags are HTML or part of the wiki language?

As for the position of {{nop}}, that's what I assumed as well. I will check the main ns if the two together have any adverse effect. — Ineuw talk 03:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

List of missing running headers

Would it be possible to get a list of pages in Volumes 1 to 4 of PSM which are missing the running headers, and paste it in User:Ineuw/Sandbox8? Thanks. — Ineuw talk 01:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Try now.--Mpaa (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, in a big way.— Ineuw talk 00:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Upload help please

I am reading Help:Beginner's guide to Index: files but I am having trouble getting a DjVu from http://archive.org/details/MN40077ucmf_0 to Commons. The work will be going to The Necessity of Atheism (Brooks) which will be licensed {{PD-US-no-renewal|1994|1933}}. It seems the only option is to upload from my computer to Commons (not directly from IA), but I can't figure out how to get the DjVu from Internet archive to my computer. It only wants to open it via a web page and I am not seeing a way to save it as DjVu. Jeepday (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't see the .djvu file even when you follow the link from All files:HTTP [6]? I usually just right-click on the .djvu file from there and select "Save as..." from the drop-down menu to save the file locally. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I must have been having a braincramp. When the right mosue click said "save link as..." I was thinking it was referring to the link as in short cut, not the file the link was going to. I have it on my PC now, thanks again GO3 :) Jeepday (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Template Review

Moved to Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Template_Review, Jeepday (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion requested

I've been trying to get the following template and have despite various attempts failed Template:Statute_table_entry to get it to work properly or consistently.

As a result I'm going to go back to coding the tables which it was supposed to be used for manually because I know that works. I've already reverted (or in some cases blanked(because it's easier to start from a clean version of the relevant page) the usages of this template or the higher level ones on which it is dependent.

Also affected :-

Can someone please delete these 4 templates, so that someone else can figure out the CORRECT way of making dynamic table using templates, please ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well this a right little mess isn't it, After the above request was made the templates concerned were fixed, which means

the WRONG version got nuked.  :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

All 4 restored . The post did say 'these 4 templates', however. Lessons learned I guess (if you use sdelete to request a deletion ,you have the chance to stop it more so than using this avenue again). -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
What seems to have been restored is the 'broken' version, not the revisions that were the fix. Has something gone wrong in the restoration? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Yup, it seems the last dozen or so edits didn't happen. I might have accidently clicked them off or something before I sent the request to restore. Anyway, they should be restored now. Sorry about that. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the restorations. :) -- Cat chi? 19:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


Indenting fields in a table

In a table on the following page: Page:Chronological_Table_and_Index_of_the_Statutes.djvu/31

some of the titles such as those begining with c. and cc. should be indented.

Having tried various approaches to indenting these BUT not those which have a definite year or Specfic Name, and failing to get something that worked consistently I've removed the indenting code from both {{Statute table/chapter}} and {{Statute table}}.

Having tried at least 3 different approaches, as evidenced by the revision history, and getting the point of violent frustration in the process, without success can someone else please come up with a working solution?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I've tried something in the sandbox, but I'm requesting someone to review my code :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, I've had a hard time trying figure out what you were up to for a day or two now partly because "I" see the chapter & Nos. in the left-most column as being centered while "you guys" kept tweaking the template(s) to produce an indent of some sort (and that was done with 'Gap' to boot) instead.
From the few pages that I've seen to date, only the instances where braces are used to capture the content in the right-most column, which typically spans down over two or more rows as well, do I see anything being remotely "indented" (and those are really bulleted lists without the bullet if one wants to be technical about it; otherwise the braces would be redundant).
So without more clarity, or at least some fixed example to use for reference, its tough to try and give you helpful advice here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The reference would be the scans of the Chronological Table, which I was trying to transcribe. Exmaple image: - [7] - With the addition of some kind of 'annotation' to indicate what 'short titles' had been assigned, that was format I was trying to reproduce in wiki-markup, and flailing. That is what the short Version of an entry should look like, a 'long' entry which was intended for use on the various portals, included addtional columns for the 'long' title, 'short' title and additional notes. It's currently an awful mess, so perhaps it's an idea to throw it all out and start again with a consistent approach.
I've had a go in my sandbox at something a lot closer to the original, which doesn't require messing with esoteric templates and simply looks better than the uglification produced by the excess boxing and shading of the "wikitable" class. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The reason I was using 'wikitable' was because it makes it somewhat easier to figure out mangled entries and rowspan issues, The relevant templates don't have to use those indefinitly.
Damn... wish I saw that sooner - I could have squeezed in the padding and brace columns to contain the middle column here then just outdent each entry in the end. Still, the usage of gap there is nearly as insane as the indent thing earlier (1 "gap" at the top of a column will space that column cell in the rows that follow automatically until the next colspan breaks its isolation; more than a quarter of the post-expand & template argument size is gone already without all that additional table styling and gap repetition - I doubt the whole table will transclude to the mainpage if we keep going down this road). -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to 'fix' the template if you think it can be. I'm going to hold on converting , or adding more entries until a comprehensive solution to this exists. Ideally we need ONE set of templates that can be used for both the original work and the Portals. I agree with George Orwell III, that these templates are getting sufficiently complex that something will break. Part of the complexity is because I was wanting to add 'annotations' to the original 1878 or so Chronological table so that where the measures in question had a source text on Wikisource it could be hyperlinked (the easiest approach to do that was to have short titles, (In passing I will note that some of the short titles in use on Wikisource are not necessarily the 'offical' ones, This I suppose is a matter of redirects.) It would be nice though to have a master index table of all bits of English legislation, even if it is a BIG project. (I think the last 'official' Chronological Tables took a Govt Dept about 2 years to prepare XD ) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I've gotten used to copying styling from row to row that I forgot that gap isn't a style. I've amended my sandbox accordingly. Hmm, a 330 page table… This won't transclude to a single mainpage. Sfan00, you could maybe consider creating subpages for each monarch and break the table up into those chunks. You could then use lst to do the transclusions. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
If you can explain how to do lst sections within tables it would be greatly appreciated. With the standard markup I found that it's beyond my ability to do that, in that what I get is 'raw' unprocessed markup when I tried to work out something for this Chronological_Table_and_Index_of_the_Statutes/Table_of_Variances, hence the ugly layout which can be greatly improved upon.

(Outdent) OK Folks, it's clear that the current approach isn't going sustainable, Can we have a discussion about having a a consistent set of template for Formatting these entries, which will be suited to all general cases for 'lists' and 'tables' of English (and by extension Commonwealth legislation )?, I'd include ALL the templates under Statute table within this, as well as {{short-title}} the code of which is also getting rather complex. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing my own request, I've already reverted the Portals, and an 'attempt' is being made to tidy things up in the tables. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Crown Copyright Waiver (UK) - dead link in template etc

We need someone who knows about UK Copyright law to look at this:

Dead link in this template:

Plus should we be using the Open Government Licence nowadays?

I mentioned a related issue a few days ago... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I took a stab at refreshing the template but I'm not a Subject so take it for what its worth. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Table inconsistencies

In trying to roll the braces into the Statute tables code I was sandboxing some code here:

Template:Statute_table/testcases#Testing_sandbox_version Template:Statute_table/sandbox

based on the example here - User:Beeswaxcandle/Sandbox

For some reason some obscure quirks of the way the parser and exact synatx are eluding me in that I am still unable to get the formatting to behave consistently.

Perhaps it's time someone suggested a more 'understandable' syntax for tables?


Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that's 'fixed' for now but see below.

Multiline brace?

In adding brace support to Template:Statute_table/sandbox I've found a minor inconvenience, in that {{brace}} doesn't extend over more than a single line. Looking at the code it seems that {{brace}} is image based, Could someone work out a way of having mutli-line table bracing, because the line lengths affected by it are of variable length which changes depending on exact page layout? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What about {{brace2}}?--Mpaa (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
That is a partial solution, but it's documentation says it might need some tweaking, see the current sandbox :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway and Toronto Star

Just a head up that the Toronto Star have started publishing Hemingway's work while working for the newspaper in the early 1920s (i.e. public domain) at http://ehto.thestar.com/ SYSS Mouse (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2011-05&oldid=13430167"