Wikisource:Scriptorium

From Wikisource
Revision as of 04:29, 10 June 2017 by Billinghurst (talk | contribs) (pipe to {{!}})
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Scriptorium

The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one; please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource. There are currently 398 active users here.

Announcements

Do you create PDFs on Wikimedia wikis?

Hi everyone, I’m looking for feedback from people who use the function to create PDFs on the Wikimedia wikis, which feels relevant for Wikisource. In short, the main technology we’re using to render them – OCG – is breaking down. The code is old, it’s difficult to maintain, and if we don’t replace it now we might suddenly find ourselves in a situation where we'd have to take it down without having planned to do so.

We have some plans for the future over at mw:Reading/Web/PDF Functionality. If you care about the PDF function, please head over there and tell us on the talk page if anything is missing, or if there’s something in there we shouldn’t spend our time and energy on. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

Add portals to default search

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

consensus reached for addition of portal to defaultsearch — billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portals aren't displayed by default when making a simple search with the search box. This most likely makes it impossible for them to be found by users who are unaware of how to search for them. I propose that we add portals to the default search results if possible. Jpez (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Support: I've forgotten the number of times I've had to do an advanced search to look in the Portal namespace. Ciridae (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Support no brainer —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I didn't realize this wasn't already the case. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Community Collaboration

Poll with 2 questions:

(1) Is it time to switch to a new Community collaboration? We've had Thoreau since January, and have made great progress. Only two items are still missing: The Maine Woods, which will be PotM in July, and his Journal, which has not been attracting much attention from editors.
(2) What about Edward VII (of the UK) as our next collaboration? Edward VII (d. 1910) is the most recent monarch of the UK likely to have much material in public domain. George V, his successor, died in 1936. There are already offsite links to several books listed on his Author page, but we have almost nothing here on Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support yes; yes --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support Ed7 as next collaboration. I thought we were going to keep Thoreau till the end of the year though, though maybe I misunderstood somewhere. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no set date for changeover on these. Sometimes they flip after a few weeks, sometimes they linger for months. I had thought initially, we'd keep Thoreau until July, but (as I noted above) most of the work likely to be done for Thoreau has now been accomplished or is scheduled, so we might as well rotate to a new collaboration. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think we can move on since we've got most of the important stuff already taken care of. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy for a change, though I would like to see us look to have us consider something like the Famous Women Series (see partial list). Women writing about women. Some of these I had been thinking that we could do as PotM, though think that the community collaboration would be a better means. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see future collaborations concerning minority groups, women, or non-English-speakers. The Famous Women Series would fit nicely, and I know I've raised the issue before of 19th-century African-American biographies, which I also think would make a good choice. I've also jotted down in my own notes the names of several women for whom we have shockingly little coverage and who deserve better. Once we get started on whatever we choose next, I hope to resurrect the nominations page for the community collab, which has lain dormant for a very long time. We didn't get any new nominations during our work on Thoreau, so part of the reason for suggesting Ed VII is that there are already external links to books, and there aren't likely to be too many more. I expect it will go quickly because of that. It's also very different from anything we've done recently, so I hope it will draw in new editors with different interests. If you can start a list for the Famous Women Series with external links to scans in the nominations page, I think it would make a very strong nom. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Based on support for the change and marginal favor of Edward VII, I've switched the Comm. Collab. over for June. We'll run this for a while and see what happens. In the meantime, I'll archive and clean up the Collaboration Proposals page, and then advertize its existence so that we can establish a set of proposals from which to draw. I see that billinghurst has already initiated his proposal, so we'll have at least one new option ready. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Management of new User right pagequality-admin

The latest software update added a new user right pagequality-admin. By default this enables Administrators to put a page into the "validated" status at any point from creation, including pages they have proofread themselves. This ability would be most useful when recreating previously validated pages. I can also see benefits when doing a Match and Split on an older work that is already at pagequality 100%. Additionally, I have occasionally accidentally demoted a page when working on it and "undoing" the demotion doesn't work. However, RC already shows that Wikisourcerors with the Admin tools are selecting Validated and then changing to Proofread, so leaving it as it is isn't a good thing.

Proposed solutions:

  1. The right is removed from the Administrator role and not enabled elsewhere;
  2. The right is added to the list that the 'Crats can assign on a time-limited basis, and anyone needing to use it for a particular project/task can request it from the 'Crats with an explanation of why they need it;
  3. The right is added to the list that Administrators can self assign on a time-limited basis (like the flood flag is currently);
  4. Something else I haven't thought of.

If option 3 is chosen, I recommend that we set up a page for Admins to record their use of the right with details of the project/task it was used on. This is for transparency of process. We need to be able to assure the general reader of our hosted works that Validated means that at least two different proofreaders have gone through the text on that page and it is in as near a perfect state as we can make it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was initially inclined to option 1, but reflection overnight brings me to option 3. When we select someone to be an Admin we trust them with various other tools, we should be able to trust them to make the right calls on when to use this right as well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 for me, w/o the burden of documenting. If it appears in the "User rights log" (like in Special:User rights) it will be enough for me.— Mpaa (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #3 seems like the best approach to me too. --Spangineer (háblame) 22:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support for option 3. This should be for moving/recreating already validated pages. Should not be used for match and split, those pages can still contain errors and will need separate validation. Anyway, parameters of option 3 should be more discussed, I think. A separate page for detailing the use of this right is not much practicable, IMO. The style of the flood flag should be sufficient, but there should be a reason column (drop-down menu) while assigning this right and that should be mandatory. Hrishikes (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Adminship to this point of time has not been primarily about our personal proofreading (cap)ability, it has been our ability to other acts on site, and to fix things according to site rules. Hanging this decision on administrators as jumping a validation would be a change in our approach.
    1. noting that scenario 2) and 3) can both occur as assigning rights to 'crats and admins are separated matters. They are not mutually exclusive. That would be the content and scope of any site request phabricator ticket.
    2. To its implementation, that is a rules-based decision made and controlled locally, and separate from the right. If we are to implement this there are rules that clearly need to be in place. Time-based addition; not to be applied by bots, nor users in bot mode. Others have suggested others.
    3. If implemented there is a clear need for this to be mechanistic resolution to identified requirements, not a user's individual decision where they are self-assessing that this will be okay. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bot approval requests

Task proposal for Wikisource-bot

I have prepared a script that can run on toollabs to replace the 'Google' page in djvu files (no pdf). The idea is as follows:

  1. tag an Index page with a template (to be defined), e.g. something like {{blank_djvu_cover}}.
  2. with the frequency we decide, the bot will modify and upload the corresponding djvu file, and blank the first Page:..../1 as 'Without text'
  3. the file will be updated locally, if not shared on Commons, or on Commons directly.

If you agree with the approach, I can take care of the above and I can first run a few tests offline as soon as taggings are done, and later on make the tool tun on tool-labs.

An item that is up for deeper discussion could be if we want the bot also to delete (only) the first page instead blanking it, specifying it via template parameter. We could limit this option for Indexes w/o pages in Page: ns, or apply it to all Indexes. In the latter case, user who tags the Index must be aware that it is up to him to make sure that the action is consistent with Index status, effects on page numbering etc.

Comments welcome.— Mpaa (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I rather like this idea, but I have two questions:
  1. How often would this bot run this task? On demand, or would it be a scheduled daily/weekly/whatever thing?
  2. I don't entirely understand the reason for point #3, keeping the modified file local. Other than the difficulty/overhead of getting bot permissions against Commons as well as enWS, why would we want to start double-hosting Commons works at enWS?
--Mukkakukaku (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops apologies Mpaa, I missed this. I would like to see the test occur. I (still) do not favour deletion of the page to shorten the file, just replacement of image and text.

To Mukkakukaku. This is the proof of concept. Talking about scheduling can follow, gut feel is check daily. Whether to move a file to Commons is not solely the Google cover page, it still needs to fit within scope at Commons, have the templates completed, etc. Moving them is not overly complex with aCommonsHelper@toollabs, or a tool like ForTheCommonGood.

Operationally, I have one to test File:Love Insurance - Earl Biggers (1914).djvu which was deleted at Commons due to this issue. One think that we should consider is categorise as having been done. That will allow us to review more easily and a touchpoint on whether to move to Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on point #3. I meant that the tagging will be done on the Index page here on WS, while the file will be updated where it is actually located.— Mpaa (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For now, you can tag using {{User:Mpaa/x}}. I created Category:Djvu files requiring clean up and Category:Djvu files processed by wikisource-bot to follow up.
For now only first page blanking is allowed.— Mpaa (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this for files that we already host? The IA Upload tool has been updated recently to allow uploaders to strip the Google page out.

For files that have not yet been started, then I favour deletion of the page, because it restores the correct right/left pagination. If proofreading is underway, then blanking is possibly the better option due to the tangle of page moves required in the Page: namespace. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it hasn't been started and it is via ia-upload, just upload the file again and strip the lead page. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If someone could tag some images, I could test a bit more.— Mpaa (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mpaa: pretty hard to find local copies of Google files with header sheets. I can find numbers at Commons, but limiting searches to local uploads ... meh! We can trial some standard files and just revert them if you need targets OR we can look to do some runs at Commons. I favour the second, and happy to run the gauntlet if necessary. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is OK to work at commons. If you can find some, I can run a few as Mpaa. If it is OK, the we can take the next step as ws-bot. Need to create {{Mpaa/something}} or Template:Ws-bot/something} there. What about categorisation? Still needed at Commons?--Mpaa (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mpaa:I don't see the need for categorisation afterwards, though there may be some value for before, especially if the bot stops working. I think that we will need an explanation page (could be on category page), and a template, maybe {{google front page}}. Hmm, does it work for pdf and djvu, or did we just do djvu? If the latter, we may wish to be more specific with template name to avoid confusion.

... a selection needing doing and most, if not all, will be at Commons.

Djvu only.— Mpaa (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Building list at User:Wikisource-bot/Lead google pagebillinghurst sDrewth 08:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mpaa: Did you run further tests at Commons? Is there something that needs to be undertaken there? We now right here? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have put this on hold for now as I am not able to follow this up as I would like. I will notify if/when I will resume this proposal.

Proposing (really) inactive bot rights removals

The following bots are not operational and have not been so for over three years, and their users are not active at enWikisource. I propose that the bot rights be removed with the reason of no longer required/redundant/inactive. BrandeisBot (talkcontribs) Cswikisource-bot (talkcontribs) InductiveBot (talkcontribs) Mjbot (talkcontribs) Pathosbot (talkcontribs) SKbot (talkcontribs) Xenophon (bot) (talkcontribs) Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmark This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Mpaa (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repairs (and moves)

Designated for requests related to the repair of works (and scans of works) presented on Wikisource

File:Dante (Oliphant).djvu

The File:Dante (Oliphant).djvu needs to have the Google notice REPLACED with a blank page. The person who scanned the volume did not include the front cover. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mpaa: where are we with getting the fix implemented at Commons? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still far away unfortunately. At least pywikibot has a now a method that can handle it (see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/rPWBC461f747f272d8d8c99beadcf5c51f4fa0fa423e0). it is actually called "whiten_page(()", the commit message was not updated. It is not clear to me how to identify the files to work on (a template? A category?)— Mpaa (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least I have a proto-script that can do it just with one command.— Mpaa (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mpaa: Billinghurst started a list at User:Wikisource-bot/Lead google page, which I've been adding to as I find them. However, the ones that I've added require removal of the page rather than replacement. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the preferred way would be to place files in a Maintenance category (e.g one for page blanking and one for page removal). In that way, it would be possible to use built-in pywikibot features. Another option would be to put a template on them.
A list in a page needs to be parsed and entries need to be deleted once processed successfully. It is not impossible but the other way is supported better by the library.--Mpaa (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mpaa! --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome.--Mpaa (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Index:The life and times of King Edward VII by Whates, Harry Richard 2.pdf

This volume needs to have the Hathi Trust notice page stripped from the front. Ideally the second page of the existing file would be replaced with a photo of the series cover (available from volume 1). The first page notice needs to be stripped because the odd-numbered pages are appeared on even file pages, and vice versa. However, note that this is a PDF file, and the other four volumes are DJVU format. -- (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. @EncycloPetey, you would need to check the pages that have already been transcribed. Ciridae (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ciridae: Thanks! I have moved and corrected all previously existing pages, to set them in the correct locations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussions

Tertiary source citation warning not relevant

Wikisource, like all wikis using CiteThisPage, displays a warning at the top of each citation page:

IMPORTANT NOTE: Most educators and professionals do not consider it appropriate to use tertiary sources such as encyclopedias as a sole source for any information—citing an encyclopedia as an important reference in footnotes or bibliographies may result in censure or a failing grade. Wikipedia articles should be used for background information, as a reference for correct terminology and search terms, and as a starting point for further research.

(eg. https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CiteThisPage&page=Executive_Order_13377&id=2024305)

This warning is not relevant for Wikisource, which provides primary sources, not tertiary sources. The warning should be removed. This was previously filed at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T162599 and then referred here.

Sondra.kinsey (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Wikisource contains primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Where did you see this notice on our site? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yeah where do i go to turn the notices off, also the "You are editing in the main namespace. This page should include a "header" template." warning. they are a useless speedbump. Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
task T162599 - you know i do present this issue at libraries, but "may result in censure or a failing grade" - really? it’s all rather patronizing. you also have: "Please remember to check your manual of style, standards guide or instructor's guidelines for the exact syntax to suit your needs. For more detailed advice, see Citing Wikipedia." that seems to me to be to be enough (if we had a citing wikisource page). can we get a consensus to edit the page? i nominate deleting the "important warning" and adding all the tl;dr to the citing wikisource page, which interested people can read.Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that most useful way to progress is to put specific text forward for the community to agree upon. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok suggested language here MediaWiki talk:Citethispage-content. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles Matthews: With your Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData-hat on. I would love to see whether cite this page could look to have a means to use Wikidata, or could use WD, AND if that is a yes, that we could also look to have a means to identify where data is missing at WD from the citation here. At the moment one has to go to WD and run manual checks to know whether information has been transferred. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally I would love to see a template at somewhere like enWP that someone can just do an arbitrary call to a WD item, and a use like {{cite book|arbitrary=Qnnnnnn}} fully populates a template. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the issue to some folk who will know more than I do. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

95 years ago was 1921

It's approaching 2019 and the release of new, 1923, works into the public domain. We should prepare a collection of 1923 works to be released on 1/1/2019; I plan to find an early copy of The Murder on the Links that we can work from, and I'm currently working on the Renewal Registrations for 1950 to be able to get a good list of some of the major stuff that's going to be freshly out of copyright in English. But I was thinking about leading into that, with an emphasis on 1921 works this year and 1922 works next year. Any interest in this idea?--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let us watch out for any US Congress bill to extend copyright term. Only if none is passed or signed into Federal Law will allow us to convert PD-1923 into public domain after 95 years of publication.--Jusjih (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist issues anyone?

For me for the past twelve hours, I am having display issues for my Watchlist. I get a blank screen (enWS only) and no error messages in my console. Can someone please confirm that their watchlist is working here at enWS, and especially confirm if they are using firefox. [my attempts to solve the issue will have to wait a while] Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do get the note
The character encoding of the HTML document was not declared. The document will render with garbled text in some browser configurations if the document contains characters from outside the US-ASCII range. The character encoding of the page must be declared in the document or in the transfer protocol.
and I don't believe that I have made any changes to anything in that time. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to fuss, I have got it working by cleaning out the list through Special:EditWatchlist/raw. I will add it back later to find out what has changed. It was a category, not sure which, that will definitely have to wait. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have identified that having Category:Speedy deletion requests in my watchlist breaks the display of Special:Watchlist. Can anyone please confirm whether it is a more universal problem, or just for me. To note that you have to set OFF in your watchlist preferences
Hide categorization of pages
billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tried just now; added the cat to my watchlist and turned off "hide cats", but I still do not have this issue in Firefox or Vivaldi/Chromium. However, I noticed a few people having watchlist trouble at w:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) so I suspect there's something bigger at play. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noting three temporary means to resolve
  • Stop watching categories, ie. turn on Hide categorization of pages in watchlist preferences
  • Turn off Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent in watchlist preferences
  • temporarily remove Category:Speedy deletion requests (or other offending categories) via Special:EditWatchlist/raw

billinghurst sDrewth 06:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with page loading in the Page: namespace

Is anyone else having problems with incomplete loading of pages in the Page: namespace? Most of the time I'm not getting a toolbar above the edit window, the action tabs along the top are in the raw order, the template scripts aren't loading, and selecting a new status doesn't generate an automatic edit summary. I've tried changing the skin and using a different browser, but to no avail. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happening for me too, especially the action tabs. Some JS scripts are failing to run somewhere. The toolbar thing happens a lot for me though. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, also just discovered that I'm not getting the symbol insertion lists at the bottom of the screen either. This was happening Thursday evening my time, but I just put it down to the live streaming going on elsewhere in the house. However, Thursday evening = new version of software. Looking at the list of changes for 1.29/wmf.21, I see there was a change to the ProofreadPage extension—something about dropping OIA-PMH support (whatever that is). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a rendering issue, sometimes forcing with ctrl-f5 can resolve the issue. w:OAI-PMH does not seem relevant. We get/got our software updates on Tuesday. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ctrl-f5 didn't do anything. Nor has closing and restarting. It's also happening on my other computer logged in and logged out, so it's not just my scripts. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Got the following error in the Firefox developer tools' JS console when the issue occurs:
TypeError: mw.util is undefined TypeError: mw.util is undefined
Stack trace:
[object Object]  load.php:176:53
	logError https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:176:53
	handler https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:154:832
	fire https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:45:104
	fireWith https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:46:431
	fire https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:46:474
	track https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:154:614
	runScript/< https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:161:301
	fire https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:45:104
	add https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:45:656
	always https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:46:865
	runScript https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:160:944
	checkCssHandles https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:161:678
	execute https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:162:384
	implement https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:168:670
	<anonymous> https://en.wikisource.org/w/load.php:73:2381
Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you use ...?safemode=1 do you get the same error message? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gut feel is that we are going to need to poke it into phabricator and get someone like Krinkle to have a look, it will most likely have ResourceLoader implications and something here is out of date. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeswaxcandle: Phabricator request to fix load.php. I am seeing various requests around the wikis about putting dependencies into gadgets for mw.util. As this is not gadget stuff the fix will need to be upstream. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC) See below maybe it is locally fixable and we just need the right console/bug reports.[reply]
  •  Comment I have made an edit to how the gadget nopinserter is loaded, and that should remove some noise, though I don't see in your above output which component was spitting chips. It will likely be one of the gadgets that you use. From the console, click on the link (load.php or index.php) and in the debugger you should get an indication of the script that is hosed. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever it was that you did, seems to have done the trick for me. I've opened several pages in a row (yesterday and today) and they've all loaded happily. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the {{FI}} and {{FIS}} templates

Does any know where the font size is specified in these templates? I've looked but found nothing, even though the captions are reduced to about 85% font-size. — Ineuw talk 00:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

94%? It comes from the class and is stored in MediaWiki:Dynimg.cssbillinghurst sDrewth 03:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, much appreciated. At least I now understand "class" as it applies to this object. — Ineuw talk 14:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Table assistance

If there is anyone who would like to fiddle with this page to make it resemble the original, I would be grateful. Text has been proofread; just needs formatting. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC) @Londonjackbooks: Done. — Ineuw talk 02:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ineuw: Thank you, that looks great. I have adopted blackletter throughout as well, although I was initially hesitant to, since headings were not quite blackletter... And I am undecided as to whether I want to set width for images... Thanks for all! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Londonjackbooks: It is not possible to be 100% faithful to the originals. I often tried, but never succeeded. I did blackletter because it is similar to the original, and breaks the constant monotony of Arial. About the image width, I always consider the main namespace Display Option's narrow layouts, #2 and #4 (which is 540px), Please see this random page That is what I used as my guide for image width. — Ineuw talk 18:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ineuw: Thank you for the explanation. I will keep it in mind. Again, thanks much for the formatting—and apparently while you were experiencing page loading issues? Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page loading for editing is painstakingly slow

For the past week, opening and displaying a page for edit has been very slow - to the point that I must wait minutes for a page to render, if they render at all. I open and edit consecutively, several pages at a time but that shouldn't be a problem because I have sufficient RAM memory and other websites load normally.

  • Cleared the Index caches, with all cache controls available to users.
  • Yesterday, monitored both my internet down and upload speeds every hour, and it's always normal and the same.
  • Requested my ISP to do the same, and clear any cache that would affect performance, and he confirmed that all is normal.
  • Checked the Wikimedia servers and they were all operating normally.
  • Scanned for viruses and adware and everything is clean. (Also I am going through OpenDNS for added protection.
  • Tested both Chrome and Firefox and the problems are the same.

Wikisource page loading from the Commons is painstakingly slow. Any ideas? — Ineuw talk 04:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the same issue as #Problems with page loading in the Page: namespace above? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
test with safemode (instructions above) — billinghurst sDrewth 13:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Check your console for errors. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, completely missed that post. I knew that there are loading errors with load.php from looking at the console at other times, but I wasn't sure if it's because of my gadgets or scripts. I will repeat the actions with the console. — Ineuw talk 18:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tested "safemode" and it works, and generated the following error:
Gadget "CollapsibleNav" styles loaded twice. Migrate to type=general. See <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/RL/MGU#Gadget_type>.
Also, this is not a productive solution. So, I created a phabricator ticket T164443Ineuw talk 00:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ineuw: If the page loaded in Page: nswithout delay using safemode, then the problem that relates to your use of gadgets and/or js scripts, so poking it to phabricator isn't easily going to resolve your issue. You need to identify where your issue is situated. That will be either turning off gadgets and/or blanking scripts while the source is identified; OR via the use of the console and developer tools.

I have resolved issues that I see with the gadgets that I have selected. Each persons choice of gadgets will be different, so each person can check to see if they are getting errors, or resolving issues. You alone can test your chosen environment. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got your point about finding the error, so I must disable all, and re-enable them one by one. — Ineuw talk 01:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disabled all gadgets and tested page opening, and nothing changed. I am sure it's not the gadgets.
  • Removed all scripts, (but left the common.css untouched) and emptied and disabled browser cache. The load was still slow but faster than with the scripts. I also got the following console messages.
This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui.widget".  load.php:31:289
This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui.core".
Please use "mediawiki.ui.button" or "oojs-ui" instead.
Ineuw talk 02:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Okay, and that confirms that it is in your gadgets or user scripts. Safemode also turns off our enWS forced scripts. All of those are warnings, not faults/errors, so they can be ignored.

We need for you to determine which script or scripts cause the problem. Either start with all on, or all off, and singularly increment until the erroneous script is identified. Or start half way with one of gadgets or user scripts running and work up or down from there. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still not 100% sure what causes the problem but the first thing I noticed that after removing all code, the CharInsert bar remained on top of the edit window, thus making the following snippet of code unnecessary, and possibly the cause of the problem. window.charinsertMoveTop = true;. Restored my user defined Charinsert and a page is loading faster but still not as it was in the "old days".
I also suspect that the Common.js page is corrupt because when in edit mode, it didn't bring up the normal .js editor features and remained an ordinary text page. I managed to bring it back by clearing the page cache, but it took some three minutes do display correctly. Can I delete this page and recreate a new common.js? Or, should I move my code into the vector.js? Vector is what I use always. — Ineuw talk 07:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are running nopinserter as a pushed script rather than the gadget, and it has dependencies, so that will clearly have been one issue. I have wrapped it in a means to utilise the dependent script. I would have thought that you could have just used the gadget, but that is your choice. Your other two loaded scripts may or may not cause issues, if they use mw.util, then they will cause issues and we will need to amend their actions too.

re .js files. Common.js is "common" to all skins, and is the place that you should run scripts. You would only put vector skin only scripts in vector.js. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Billinghurst: With all due respect, I challenge your assessment of the problem, and you ignore my concerns. I say this because User:Beeswaxcandle has the same problem and I doubt we use the same setup and editing tools.

I don't expect you to know the answers and solutions to the issues, but I was hoping that you give more consideration to my concerns. I tested the loading problem for the past week before I posted in the Scriptorium.

I am now logged in as User:IneuwPublic, where the setup mirrors that of User:Ineuw, including the gadget selections. In fact, this account is linked to the Ineuw account's scripts because they are don't exist in this account. With this account everything works amazingly fast.

The problem must originate with the User:Ineuw account overall. An hour ago, I deleted ALL cookies of the Wikimedia family from the browser and logged in anew, but it still hangs when attempting to load a page.

My modified copy of the nopinserter has worked for over a year without any problems. It was modified to omit the constant popup message, since I insert nop en masse after proofreading at least 100 pages and this was the original intent of the script designer.

I also use a modified copy of pathoschild's proofreading script as User:Ineuw/common.js/proofreading.js because the standard script surrounds mdashes with spaces, (the French Wikisource requirement), whereas we don't.

Did the wmf software updates remove the need for window.charinsertMoveTop = true;.? I asked because now the Charinsert is on top of the text area box by default.

It occurred to me that the problem may be a disk error on the server where my settings are stored and that is why I moved and recreated common.js and common.cs and then I deleted the originals. Suggestion the use of vector.js and vector.css was an alternative to recreating the two modules, because I only use the vector skin. — IneuwPublic talk 18:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ineuw: May I double your "with all due respect." I have fixed four gadget issues,[6] and mimicked one of those fixes in your common.js file each of these could have contributed to the issue that you describe, and I have spent numbers of hours identifying issues of the community concern, and looking at the broader WMF environment (rather than doing the things that I would have liked to have done).

Your commentary is facile, and it ignores facts that it is only happening in limited situations (some people and at this wiki) which indicates local settings issues, not systemic problems.

You have not looked at the broader wikimedia discussions that have been occurring about mw.util and where people are using it that they need to fix local settings. You simply are busy reacting and talking, not listening and providing useful information that allows some to diagnose your issue. Deleting files, moving things out of common.js to your skin, rather than simply commenting out lines of code reinforce this. The simple fact is that you need to identify where the problem is occurring (which script, which gadget, which setting) and not yammer about what has or hasn't worked over periods of time, it is all irrelevant in wikis where the underlying code develops on a weekly cycle

Actually stuff it all. I am giving up explaining where people aren't listening. Read the following, the information is there and you get to join the dots.

If you come off the default settings, you own your problems and solutions. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read it and got it. The yammerer. — Ineuw talk 18:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting missing pages from another file

Colleagues and I have started a transcription project at Index:Plomer Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers 1907.djvu. We've just noticed that pages 88 and 89 are missing from the IA scan we've used. Those pages are available in a scan of a different copy of the book. What is the recommended way to combine those pages with the existing transcription in progress? Thanks in advance for any help, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, @Mpaa: has helped me out with similar issues in the past. But please don't do any more proofreading of the index until it is taken care of, due to potential page moves that will need to be made. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.— Mpaa (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's brilliant. Thanks very much for your prompt and helpful action, Mpaa. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Gesta Romanorum sanity check

I've finally got back to work on this somewhat complex project and think I've done enough that it's apparent where it's headed. I also want to provide more complete Wikisource translations of at least some of the tales, as the original explications of the tales are mostly abbreviated or omitted in the translation. Plus there's this 1600 edition at Internet Archive that would be very challenging to transcribe. So ... could someone please check this out so that lots of pages won't need renaming or fixing in the future? Mudbringer (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our guidance for different translations of the same work is to utilise the name of the translator(s) as part of the disambiguation. (Wikisource:naming conventions) I am presume that is question you are asking. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the feedback. I don't see any mention of translations on the page you linked, or any mention of disambiguation on Wikisource:Translations, but the guidance you mentioned seems reasonable. In this case, however, the two editions I have index pages for are of the same translation, by Charles Swan, which I believe is the only PD translation in nearly modern English. The 2-volume edition I'm working on right now is almost identical to the original edition of the Swan translation, merely provided with an extra introduction. The other edition, by Hooper, has been lightly revised, but is mostly important for Hooper's introduction, which has one of the best explanations of the history of the work.
Duh! See Wikisource talk:naming conventions. We are atrocious at good help and policy pages. Transcription rulez! <wry smile> — billinghurst sDrewth 22:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My original intention in posting to the Scriptorium was to ask in general if anyone could look over the linked indexes pages, and the the pages in the main namespace that I've begun, to alert me to any problems that I have been overlooking. I apologise for the vagueness. As for specific concerns, I would like to hear anyone's recommendations on these issues:
  • I have the two volumes for the 1871 edition linked from the translation/disambiguation page (to which I've added more detailed information on these and other editions) and I would prefer to keep it this way rather than require the reader to click through a page listing just those two volumes. On the other hand, it could be useful to have a single page listing the tables of contents of both volumes.
  • On Latin Wikisource I have only placed one edition. Ideally I'd have a page listing various Latin editions, but I'm hesitant to try that with my poor Latin skills. Given these constraints, I'm trying to provide interlanguage links that will be helpful and logical, but I'm sure there's room for improvement.
  • There are two books that contain well-known discussions of Gesta Romanorum. I've just read on Help:Disambiguation that to include these books it is recommended to make a portal page. To do that, could I just rename the Gesta Romanorum page to Portal:Gesta Romanorum, modify the contents as needed, and leave the resulting redirect as is?
  • As I said, the volume I'm working on now is rather complex. For example Of the Life of Alexius, son of the Senator Eufemian includes an endnote longer than the translation itself, and both the translation and endnote have footnotes. I now have the footnotes appear immediately following their sections, but would it be better to have them all at the bottom of the page?
I'm afraid my queries are still too vague, but it's the best I can do right now. Mudbringer (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts:
  • Linking directly to both volumes of the Wright translation from Gesta Romanorum is fine, but it would also be desirable to additionally create Gesta Romanorum (Swan 1824) (or whatever) as a main page for the two-volume translation work.
  • I'd leave LAwikisource as it is unless you plan to add more Latin versions to LAwikisource yourself.
  • What you'd need to do is leave Gesta Romanorum as a list of translations of the text, and create a separate Portal:Gesta Romanorum for works related to the text.
  • Help:Footnotes and endnotes can be your guide for footnotes and endnotes.
And finally, your efforts look to be quite good, keep up the good work! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the helpful and encouraging comments! Mudbringer (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Feature Two Column Edit Conflict View

Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Birgit Müller (WMDE): Is this expected to work in the Page namespace here? Because it doesn't appear to - I get the default edit conflict interface with the Beta enabled. Sam Walton (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sam Walton, it doesn't work in the page namespace, because Wikisource uses a different content model for the page namespace that is not wikitext (same goes for Wikidata). But good point: If the old edit conflict resolution page does work in the page namespace, the new one should ideally work there, too. We'll look into it & check what would be needed to achieve this & I'll let you know. Thanks for the heads up! --Birgit Müller (WMDE) (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

02:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Templates {{FI}} and {{FIS}} are broken

is template:FIS now broken? and flat sidebar menu? Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be. Haz talk 03:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hopeful this can be remedied. I appreciate how the templates behave/render on various devices. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
appears to work now. Slowking4SvG's revenge 11:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

index page problem

Hi. I just uploaded a book to the Commons but when I made the index page in the Persian Wikisource, it didn't show the page numbers. Can anyone help me with this? --Yousef (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try now. It looked like the pagelist command was missing for some reason. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. --Yousef (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoosef Pooranvary: Can you please help with the Persian writing in djvu pages 6, 7, 9 of Index:Wanderings of a Pilgrim Vol 1.djvu? The author's name is always in Persian in this work. Hrishikes (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Although it is written in Arabic alphabet and it seems to be Persian, the name is not Persian. It’s transliteration to English is "Funny Parx". --Yousef (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoosef Pooranvary: Many thanks. If you can please transcribe the Persian at the lower right of the image on page 6, I have plan to crop the image (and de-color the background) and transcribe the writing. Hrishikes (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Building a "small language" corpora

Is Wikisource the right place to compile a small language corpus, perhaps on a test Wikisource? The source of the works is a university that has published literature compositions of an indigenous language as well as student's literary works including poems and short novels. Unfortunately there is a pressing need to archive these documents by means of digitization. -Masssly (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multilingual Wikisource (a.k.a. Old Wikisource) is the place for works in languages that aren't big enough to have their own wikisources. They already have a small corpus of Cherokee texts and Inuktitut textsBeleg Tâl (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know Beleg Tâl, thanks. By small I actually meant between 3K and 4k (and growing) pages of texts. I suppose that is sufficient to have their own Wikisource. I could use some help setting it up in the incubator -Masssly (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Masssly: multi language Wikisource is our incubator for Wikisource, it can be set up now and easily and you should ask for help at their mul:Wikisource:Scriptorium. From there they can spool it into its own independent source at the appropriate time, they will also be able to push it through the language committee more easily. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure to check the licenses; projects like these don't tend to worry about copyrights of the students or the works they've translated as well as Wikimedia would prefer.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Prosfilaes: I didn't envision this could be a problem. But thinking of it now it seems to me that the only option available to not get into trouble is to convince the school to release their material under BY-SA. My question is: and if they did, could I upload on their behalf? -Masssly (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the work has scans to be uploaded to Commons, then I would think that it should have supporting documentation through the OTRS process would be beneficial (see c:Commons:OTRS). Following this should cut out a lot of potential grief, and set a steady base to work upon. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Masssly: I could help you starting on the Multilingual/Old/Incubator Wikisource. Could you tell us what language you are talking about? (and if possible, the corresponding ISO code). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@VIGNERON: Language is Dagbani and the ISO is dag.Masssly (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Layout 3 skewy for me

Looking at The Strand Magazine/Volume 1/Issue 1/The Metropolitan Fire Brigade the header for layout 3 appears off to the right of the page and I need to scroll the page. Prior to my editing I though that I would confirm that it is a problem wider than me. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see the same thing, and likewise on other, simpler pages. Mudbringer (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

A note about a future change

Hi everyone. Some of you have already noticed this in m:Tech News above and as it's been already mentioned twice, but I wanted to flag again that because of an upcoming change, there's some code that may need to be fixed on this wiki:

You can find the list of the pages you'll want to check in a table on mw.org. In most cases those are false positives (I have looked at some of those pages and looks like there are just several cases of bad OCR), and you only really need to fix as explained on mw.org when the "defective" syntax is inside a template or a wikilink, basically. When you have completed the checks, please edit the Notes field of the table accordingly! If you have questions, please reach the team on the talk page. Hope this helps, and thanks for your attention and your help, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
As most of these problem are bad OCR typo in 'not proofread' pages (especially in the United States Statutes at Large), I've launched WS:AWB to replace them by a simple hyphen.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RevisionSlider

Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

21:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikimania 2017 "Wikisource Year in Review"

hey all, i have been accepted for a talk about wikisource at wikimania. please get your suggestions, gripes, talking points in. i would be happy to present your brief.- cheers. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Having H: properly mapped to Help: namespace

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Consensus achieved that we have additional local mapping of H: to Help: as namespacealias — billinghurst sDrewth 04:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment we use a shortcut like H:NS to be a shortcut to Help:Namespaces; this is actually a kludge that shows up in the main namespace. We should be having H: registered as a namespacealias to Help: as we have done for WS: to Wikisource:. As a practical example of this when looking at the prefixindex, note the namespace dropdown as an indicator of where you are in these examples Special:PrefixIndex/H: and Special:PrefixIndex/WS:, and also note the abbreviated listing

Technical speaking: We should be having H: set as a namespace alias for ns:12/Help: and HT: set as a namespace alias for ns:13/Help talk: (see current definitions in API call. This is a little fix, and does not adversely affect the wiki. It corrects an oversight that we made when we started better using the help namespace, though incorrectly implemented the shortcuts. [I am mostly asking the non-tech members of the community to trust me that this is needed.]

I request that the community approves this proposal and we will get a site request phabricator to resolve, and the sysadmins to run some scripts that will fix the incorrect namespace components. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Ciridae (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 SupportSpangineer (háblame) 22:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Sam Wilson 07:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proofread namespace xwiki alignment for WS sisters

As a note, the Vienna hackathon (currently running) will be pushing ahead with the long-discussed plan to harmonise the namespaces for Index: and Page:. There is no specific timetable for the implementation / migration, though the process to migrate is now in play. Whenever it happens it will mean a small disruption, and this will be announced to us well ahead of the change. There is no requirement for the community to do anything except note the forthcoming change, (and if you do hardcode namespaces into templates, etc. then you will need to update such). Technical detail is in the phabricator ticket and further background at Mediawikibillinghurst sDrewth 16:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

21:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Plain sisters links for multi-level WD items

Hi all,

I'd like to have another crack at adding support to {{plain sister}} for including links to sister projects where they're not from the directly linked item, but rather are from the parent 'work' level. I had a look at this a while ago, but it turned out that there are some editions that are editions of multiple works. Now I've fixed up for this scenario, and all available site links will be listed. (Actually, I'm having trouble finding an active example of this, but you get the idea.)

This is the change I am suggesting. The output will do things like this: Script error: The function "interprojetPart" does not exist. Where our The Nether World currently has to have a manual override to display a sitelink to Wikipedia; with the above change, it will follow the Wikidata connections.

What do you think? :-)

Sam Wilson 20:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also: have a look at Module:Plain sister/sandbox testcases and see if you can suggest any other tests I might add (i.e. page names, Wikidata IDs, etc.). Thanks! (Tomorrow is hack day at WikiCite, where I am now, and I'll be working on this with some other Wikisourcerers.) Sam Wilson 20:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:media

The {{media}} template generates different text about available sound files depending on whether it is used in the Author namespace or the Main namespace. And this works well under most circumsatnces, except when the Main namespace page is a versions or translations page. Witness Vita Nuova (Dante), which ought to explain that:

The icon identifies that the work includes a spoken word version.

But because this is the main namespace, it states:

one or more chapters are available in a spoken word format.

Could someone familiar with this template suggest a means for making this work properly for versions and translations pages? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a bit of faffing around to make that modification for a one-off use. I would suggest using the "icon" parameter, and then add your preferred text next to it. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a one-off. I'll have the same problem for several plays by Aeschylus when I set that up in a few weeks, and this has the potential to be a regular issue. We just don't have many people yet adding audio files or setting up versions pages. Fixing the problem either requires adjusting the template, or following what the Italians have done in creating a "Work:" namespace for versions/translations to keep those pages clearly separate from the editions (which remain in their Main namespace). Neither solution would be simple, but adjusting the template would be simpler than creating another namespace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would it perhaps be best to integrate {{media}} into the header template, since that's where the distinction is made between editions and versions? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it is going to be needed then there is no issue making a change. Please describe the circumstances that will be different from now. Will it only be main ns, or will it be others? What text is required to be utilised in this situation. Probably best to have the amendment conversation on the template's talk pgae. Re part of header ... IMO I don't think that we would need to add it in the header configuration, it isn't used that much so no point in bulking up templates and modules for low use templates. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We could add some 'custom text' parameters to the media template (e.g. 'before', 'icon', and 'after' or something). I don't think it should be part of {{header}} because it's not applicable to most works. Sam Wilson 07:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

How do you fix 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Hetaerism ?

On page 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Hetaerism, "HETAEHISM" should be "HETAERISM" and "¥racpa" should be "ἑταίρα", but when I click on the edit button, there's no content there, just a template which I don't understand... AnonMoos (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: Click on the page number to the left of the heading ([415]). That will lead you to the index where you can make necessary changes. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's because I'm using an older browser version, but I don't see any "415" link -- just links to Hesychius of Miletus and Heterokaryota. AnonMoos (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos: Go here: Page:EB1911 - Volume 13.djvu/431. Hrishikes (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
if you check "display options" on left hand menu, you may have "Page links hidden" enabled, if so, you would need to toggle to "Page links displayed" - they keep improving display. Slowking4SvG's revenge 16:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hrishikes -- thanks, got it... AnonMoos (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And to close the loop, it is my understanding that it is the default for all new users and IP editors to have the page links displayed (dynamic layout). — billinghurst sDrewth 22:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links about texts

There doesn't seem to be a policy specifically about external links, so I'm curious to see the community's view on external links not to texts but to resources about texts. I realise it's not the point of Wikisource to be a guide to the web, and any external links have to be justified in terms of a benefit to the reader. Linking is probably best done by incorporating links from Wikidata or by putting parameters in a site-specific template. That said, there are links to external research or education resources which would be useful to some readers of a text.

Case in point: the Eighteenth Century Poetry Archive not only has the text of 1500 poems, but various tools for analysing each poem's structure and meaning, e.g. [44]. This is an open access resource and, being hosted by the Bodleian Libraries, a long-term project. If someone systematically made links from transcribed poems to this source, maybe via a custom template, would that be seen as a positive contribution?

As another idea, what about linking to the current Grove Music Online articles from articles in the Wikisource transcription of the 1900 Grove? The current edition is a subscription resource, so links benefit fewer readers than an open access resource. Then again, they benefit some readers with no disadvantage to others. I'm asking this as the Wikimedian In Residence at the University of Oxford and thinking about how to encourage academic projects to contribute to Wikisource. We're looking at sharing text, but sharing links might be a starting point for some projects, so long as these are welcome. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links are generally frowned upon within the text, but if you want to link to external resources from the notes section of the header, or from the Talk page, that should be fine. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is the poetry archive linked with schemes like VAIF for the authors? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have allowed links from a work talk page where there is componentry about the edition; and we would use the parameter edition = yes in the header. We do allow links from an author page to externally hosted works, where they are no on-site, so that is an option. I don't see benefit in having a link to the top of a general poetry site. If we are talking about analysis of a work, that would usually be in the "Works about ..." section of the author page, if many in a specific sub-heading. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me like an opportunity to set up a "course" on the subject at Wikiversity. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Beleg Tâl: Thanks. To be clear, I'm proposing links from the foot of a transcription, not from within the text. @ShakespeareFan00: The poetry archive has its own identifiers, but uses English Short Title Catalogue citation numbers for the editions of books from which the poems are taken. @Billinghurst: I'm not proposing to link author pages to "the top of a general poetry site", but to put a link at the foot of specific works to a page that gives further scholarly information about that specific poem. The linked information is about the poem, not the author, so it wouldn't go on the author profile. In the case of Grove, it seems like putting a link to the current Grove article about an author in the "Works about..." section of the Author profile is okay. However, most of the topics of Grove aren't authors: I'm more interested in linking from the foot of a 1900 Grove article to the current Grove article about the same topic. @EncycloPetey: Interesting idea, but I fear it could lead there being a link from a Wikisource poem or biography to "Educational resources about this text on Wikiversity" and then that link leading to just another external link. So the user gets the same information; it just takes them longer. Wikiversity is awesome in theory but I find it has more navigational infrastructure than content. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a little tricky as our reproductions are editions, not necessarily the works, and we see enough variation in editions. So if you truly think that it belongs, I would could see it existing within the authority control template and putting the standard link data into WD, not so much managing it here as a data field. Alternatively we can add information to the talk page, and link within the header to additional data on the talk page, and that could include formalised templates with external links. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transcribing a biographical dictionary of printers

My colleagues at the Bodleian tell me that there are three or four volumes which are used heavily in book research — these books play as central a role in their field as Grove does for musicology — but there is no official electronic version, just scraps of transcriptions on different researchers' hard drives. I've been turning them into Wikisourcerors and together we're gradually transcribing one of the books at Index:Plomer Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers 1907.djvu. If anyone wants to help this collaboration and support research into historical books, please jump in and transcribe a page. Any help gratefully received! MartinPoulter (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i see you are not doing hanging indent, might want to make a note on index talk. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes putting hanging indent can be a PITA so often without any benefit as in such works as it is not needed when transcluding. If that is the case here, we can just stick class = "leftoutdent" into the header section. We can also stick the class in the main ns so not having to fuss with opening and closing indents. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MartinPoulter: there is also Index:A dictionary of printers and printing.djvu from the 1830s. Please do list this work on Wikisource:WikiProject Biographical dictionaries. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MartinPoulter: Can I also suggest that we put the section names into appropriate case for proper nouns, as that will help your transclusion. It means that you can match the subpage name with the section name so you can transclude more easily with something like {{#tag:pages||index={{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}.djvu|from=|to=|fromsection={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|tosection={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}}}{{DEFAULTSORT:{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}}}}
I have set up {{PDBP lkpl}} (internal links where q.v. is used) and {{PDBP link}}. Prior to transcluding you are going to need to work out what title you want for the work as I have guessed at "Plomer's Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers" though you may have a better idea. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with billinghurst's description of hanging indent as "a PITA so often without any benefit" so I'd prefer to avoid it, but if there's a low-effort way to apply it to all the transcluded pages, or any way to make the formatting of transcluded pages less repetitive, then great. Huge thanks for creating the templates and for your other work on the transcription. I hadn't realised SUBPAGENAME could be used that way: that's brilliant, and I'll change my section names in the transcription. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Old toolbar retirement

Noting the commentary about the old toolbar's proposed retirement (above ... 2006 wikitext editor). I know that it is going to be problematic to me as I prefer the simpler old style where it is easy customise — either to cull or to add buttons. We should look at what customisations we have individually undertaken, and which we need to migrate to the new schema, especially as I was pretty useless at converting and gave up through repeated failure. Pain that they have only provided three weeks notice of the retirement, for something that has presumably been in the pipes for a while. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit with the betatoolbar (I wonder if they'll change its name now?!) and could probably help if you have any particular scripts that need migration (e.g. I did a User:Samwilson/PageCleanUp.js button, and things in various extensions). Sam Wilson 06:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I loathe the newer toolbars with passion—they take up too much space on my limited screen and are ugly. They have also never behaved well with the eminiently sensible MonoBook skin. If there is a toolbar that behaves well and is limited in height to the size of the old toolbar, then I'll be interested. Otherwise I'm really not sure that continuing to contribute will be practical for me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to keep choices, and use either one or the other when we need them? --Zyephyrus (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeswaxcandle: That feedback needs to be added to the phabricator ticket above into detail about how the extended toolbar (new one) is less useful. It would seem we are needing to have someone gadgetise the toolbar, and best we can maybe hope for is a delay in the removal. And that needs lots of dissent, and good argument. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheet music and pdf export

I've noticed sheet music we transcribe with lilypond isn't rendered at all when you try to export it as pdf. For an example try to export The Child's Own Music Book/Baa, Baa, Black Sheep as pdf. Jpez (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpez: PDF generation is widely considered problematic via the current internal tool, and to which you can express that commentary at the talk page of mw:Reading/Web/PDF Functionality. Did you also try the WSexport tool for PDF creation to see if that was any better? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: I also tried the export tool and the same thing happened, it came up blank. I'll raise the issue at wikimedia and see what happens. For now you can click on the musical score and download it as an image but the resolution is low. From what I know lilypond has built in pdf functionality, maybe it can be intergrated. Jpez (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpez: 1) It sounds like a phabricator: ticket to address; 2) it sounds like mentioning in the PDF replacement project that Extension:Score and PDF generation seem to be at odds. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Billinghurst: I've posted a comment here and I will also will create a phabricator ticket when I have the time. I've never used phabricator before so I will need to look into it. Jpez (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Validation before proofreading

The validation option is coming up during page creation. Experimentally I have validated this page. New bug? Hrishikes (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not just for new pages. I was proofreading earlier and found that the system was offering me the option to validate pages that previously had only been edited by me. [57] --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Put it into phabricator, and we should obviously @Tpt:billinghurst sDrewth 04:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answer by Tpt:

we have added a new user right called "pagequality-admin" that is, by default, enabled only to admins and allow them to tag as validated all pages. It is useful when you want to re-create already validated pages. See task T51482. I'm going to send an email to the mailing list about that.

Hrishikes (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully @Tpt: will also explain how to turn this off for a particular Wikisource—or at least change it to a flagged right that can temporarily be granted by a 'crat for a particular purpose. Given that we give our readers the guarantee that pages marked as validated have been checked by at least two people, this change is not a good thing for the larger Wikisources. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to restrict this right to 'crat, just fill a bug on phabricator tagged with "site config" and "proofreadpage" to get the change done in en.wikisource configuration. If you want something that could be temporarily granted, you need to create a new user group (doable also in en.wikisource configuration). Tpt (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To provide some clarification, if you look at Special:ListGroupRights and search for the term "pagequality" you will see two (new) hits. 1) in user which presumably is the first indicator of the migration from code-control to system permissions as the means that the system progresses through proofreading (only logged in users can progress the page status); 2) the admin pair that is the advanced right to jump straight to validated. If this community does not wish this to be available here, we would need to go through the general consultation phase and consensus process for site requests. Here that would be to have the right pagequality-admin removed from the administrator role, and presumably not available elsewhere. If the community wish for this to be a separate assignable right through Special:UserRights by crats or admins, then a consensus discussion can be used. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that there has been some positive commentary on the pha ticket and changes are being proposed. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RC filtering is broken too. Can't change namespace from "all", can't change number of changes from "50", can't change number of days from "7". Hesperian 05:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not having problems with those issues right now. Just checked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you care for most? What are you concerned with? Take part in the strategy discussion

Hi!

The more involved we are, the more ideas or wishes concerning the future of Wikipedia we have. We want to change some things, but other things we prefer not to be changed at all, and we can explain why for each of those things. At some point, we don’t think only about the recent changes or personal lists of to-dos, but also about, for example, groups of users, the software, institutional partners, money!, etc. When we discuss with other Wikimedians, we want them to have at least similar priorities that we have. Otherwise, we feel we wasted our time and efforts.

We need to find something that could be predictable, clear and certain to everybody. A uniting idea that would be more nearby and close to the every day’s reality than the Vision (every human can freely share in the sum of all knowledge).

But people contribute to Wikimedia in so many ways. The thing that should unite us should also fit various needs of editors and affiliates from many countries. What’s more, we can’t ignore other groups of people who care about or depend on us, like regular donors or “power readers” (people who read our content a lot and often).

That’s why we’re running the movement strategy discussions. Between 2019 and 2034, the main idea that results from these discussions, considered by Wikimedians as the most important one, will influence big and small decisions, e.g. in grant programs, or software development. For example: are we more educational, or more IT-like?

We want to take into account everybody’s voice. Really: each community is important. We don’t want you to be or even feel excluded.

Please, if you are interested in the Wikimedia strategy, follow these steps:

  • Have a look at this page. There are drafts of 5 potential candidates for the strategic priority. You can comment on the talk pages.
  • The last day for the discussion is June, 12. Later, we’ll read all your comments, and shortly after that, there’ll be another round of discussions (see the timeline). I will give you more details before that happens.
  • If you have any questions, ask me. If you ask me here, mention me please.

Friendly disclaimer: this message wasn't written by a bot, a bureaucrat or a person who doesn't care about your project. I’m a Polish Wikipedian, and I hope my words are straightforward enough. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]