Wikisource:Scriptorium

← Community pages

Scriptorium

Archives→

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. 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. ↓ Go to end ↓

Announcements

Note

This section can be used by any person to communicate Wikisource-related and relevant information; it is not restricted. Generally announcements won't have discussion, or it will be minimal, so if a discussion is relevant, often add another section to Other with a link in the announcement to that section.

Reflections on the Formation and the Distribution of Riches by Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, Baron de Laune released

Like many amateurs interested in the field of economics, I've studied a particular book on the history of economics called The Worldly Philosophers by Robert L. Heilbroner, which has sold more than four million copies, and even has a Cliffs Notes commentary dedicated to the work. But The Worldly Philosophers (the fourth edition at least) begins in 1776 with Adam Smith.

Reflections on the Formation and the Distribution of Riches by Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot was written in 1770 and laid the groundwork for Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations in its treatment of how different economic actors add to the price and income of various income-producing properties as well as the medium of exchanging these properties, and like Smith's work, was intended to be read by generally educated adults of his time.

Turgot did not consider himself an economist, but his brief and broad analysis of the emerging market system of his time got it right the first time, perhaps because the market system of his time was not complicated by distracting exceptions to what was analyzable then.

With perhaps the exception of David Hume, with whom Turgot corresponded, Turgot may have been the first to explain the market system at large in the form of articulated general theories. If not, Reflections on the Formation and the Distribution of Riches at least serves as a valuable stepping stone for those wishing to go backwards from Adam Smith to understand the more isolated work of his predecessors in the scientific study of wealth. ResScholar (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)20:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia sites to move to primary data center in Ashburn, Virginia. Read-only mode expected.

(Apologies if this message isn't in your language.) Next week, the Wikimedia Foundation will transition its main technical operations to a new data center in Ashburn, Virginia, USA. This is intended to improve the technical performance and reliability of all Wikimedia sites, including this wiki. There will be some times when the site will be in read-only mode, and there may be full outages; the current target windows for the migration are January 22nd, 23rd and 24th, 2013, from 17:00 to 01:00 UTC (see other timezones on timeanddate.com). More information is available in the full announcement.

If you would like to stay informed of future technical upgrades, consider becoming a Tech ambassador and joining the ambassadors mailing list. You will be able to help your fellow Wikimedians have a voice in technical discussions and be notified of important decisions.

Thank you for your help and your understanding.

Guillaume Paumier, via the Global message delivery system (wrong page? You can fix it.). 15:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

To note that I have added information to Special:Watchlist, and we can update this as required. As it seems the dominant effect is going to be upon editing, not viewing, it seems tom me that it is a sufficient place to mention. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Work completed. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons.

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

This message was delivered based on m:Distribution list/Global message delivery. Translation fetched from: commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2012/Translations/Village Pump/en -- Rillke (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That idea is like asking a person who loves most everything in life e.g. photographs, art in the National Museum of the USA or any other museum, flowers, books, music and much more, "Which one do you like the best?" Facebook also asks narrow-minded spiritual myopia questions. I think the question is a total absurdity simply because there are too many that are beautiful or fantastic in many ways to pick "one" of anything. "There can be only one (I suppose they mean only one god.) Film: "Highlander". I would prefer that everyone see all of those that are submitted. "Let's Make a Deal", you take the "best one" plus the best "one" book here and I get copyright to all of the other pictures you have submitted. —Maury (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that in the current round, you can indeed vote for all of them (well, it would be a bit silly to vote for all, but you can vote for dozens). It's the later rounds that will narrow it down to trying to pick one. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Help turn ideas into grants in the new IdeaLab

I apologize if this message is not in your language. Please help translate it.

• Do you have an idea for a project to improve this community or website?
• Do you think you could complete your idea if only you had some funding?
• Do you want to help other people turn their ideas into project plans or grant proposals?

Please join us in the IdeaLab, an incubator for project ideas and Individual Engagement Grant proposals.

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking new ideas and proposals for Individual Engagement Grants. These grants fund individuals or small groups to complete projects that help improve this community. If interested, please submit a completed proposal by February 15, 2013. Please visit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG for more information.

Thanks! --Siko Bouterse, Head of Individual Engagement Grants, Wikimedia Foundation 20:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Correct it here.)

Canadian Wikilivres cannot import edit history

For so many months, Wikilivres:Special:Import has malfunctioned. As non-current versions of pages here are considered archives without requiring compatible licensing with cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL, if I recall correctly, cutting and pasting with the source version noted in edit summary there become the last way to transfer works from Wikisource to Wikilivres, without deleting the edit history here, unless the copyright holders defined by American law demand take-down. Chinese Wikisource is doing this method now.--Jusjih (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

When transferring by copy and paste, the correct way to meet the licensing is to copy and paste the edit history to the talk page on the receiving wiki. There is something in Wikipedia or Meta that documents this, but I can’t find it a the moment. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Found it meta:Help:Transwiki#Begin_transwiki

Aristotle's Organon released today

Complete unannotated editions of Octavius F. Owen's translation of Aristotle's Organon were officially released today. These include the works Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics, Topics and On Sophistical Refutations. To say this is an epoch-making event is not an exaggeration. Until today no hypertext edition of the history's first work of the science of logic has been freely available to the United States of America on the internet since the U. S. Supreme Court upheld the URAA international copyright treaty.

Now, this nation of 300 million can breathe a collective sigh of relief, that whenever they link to or download a portion of this ancient, influential and esteemed work through the internet, they can do so without the dread of violating their nation's copyright law!

Although the popular use of the internet is a phenomenon that has been going on for about 17 years, there have always been nations with their access to a hypertext of Aristotle's Organon under copyright doubt. Finally this founding author will have a secure seat at today's round table of the sciences of thought.

Several ideas have been exchanged about how best to honor the contributor of these priceless texts including a ticker tape parade, a National Day of Commemoration and their appearance on a U.S. postage stamp. ResScholar (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess this is good news for us too? Sorry - I can't seem to wrap my head around a thing or two on this.

If in 1853 Mr. Owen first a.) translated Aristotle's 4th century B.C. work into English and then b.) went a step further by annotating that translation with additional content and a new presentation of the resulting content (i.e. side-notes, ref-notes, foot-notes, an index, an annex, an appendix or similar), then what exactly was the problem all this time in producing the un-annotated just-the-translation a.) version or derivative?

In this case, as best as I tell, UN-annotating the "as published" work would be little more than scripting a way to toggle the before mentioned b.) side-notes, ref-notes, foot-notes, etc. on or off in the final mainspace rendering (assuming Dynamic Layouts gets seriously fixed first that is and templates are applied for each nuance throughout the work at the same time during the proofreading process). The Translation does not carry the same "creative weight" as the further annotating does the way I see it even though both are being done by the same person and in the same publication in this case. So yes, this would be new work - a sub-set of the original Page: namespace transcription & yes, I regard UN-annotating as just another form of annotating overall but this is still far different than patching/adding/editing your own content/annotations or another edition's content/annotations into or over any existing annotations as published then transcribed (the "Frankenstein" thing).

I'm not going to get into the whole copyright thing though that doesn't seem quite right either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The unannotated versions of the translations were a few days from completion when Adam brought up the Versions discussion on the Scriptorium. I joined the discussion and noticed that the parts of my unannotated edition were patched together differently than the scanned text, even though they matched the text in scans, excluding the commentary footnotes and the translation notes, which were noted to be absent, and I saw the relevance of what I was doing to what Adam was saying.

I pursued that conversation without revealing the existence of this version since Encyclopetey two days after Adam brought the discussion up on the Scriptorium started in on the absent footnotes on the scan's discussion page, and since you had known me as an admin longer I didn't want to seen as asking for favoritism for my particular case. So I joined the Scriptorium discussion and he didn't, and I thought the decision that was rendered would punt my particular case to a later discussion. I wasn't planning to be through with Aristotle: We don't have either Physics or Metaphysics.

No, the unannotated versions copyright-free worldwide are not really a world-historical event, but we have waited 17 years. How much longer are we going to wait for these "Dynamic Layouts"? Another five years? I received NO help with these versions. That doesn't bother me, but it proves some lack of interest in producing them.

How far can Dynamic Layouts take us anyway? Can they move the Chapter descriptions from one place to another? The descriptions aren't in the original Greek manuscripts.

Your original question was: If in 1853 Mr. Owen first a.) translated Aristotle's 4th century B.C. work into English and then b.) went a step further by annotating that translation with additional content and a new presentation of the resulting content (i.e. side-notes, ref-notes, foot-notes, an index, an annex, an appendix or similar), then what exactly was the problem all this time in producing the un-annotated just-the-translation a.) version or derivative?

A better question might be: what exactly was the problem all this time in producing any un-annotated just-the-translation version? Probably the existence of the Oxford translation, a good version, but one whose copyright status is not known for certain by Wikisource investigations, but whose copyright was restored from the public domain (if the copyright is vested in the individual authors or the general editor) by the URAA, which was upheld with regard to the public domain by a recent U. S. Supreme Court case.

But do a Google search on a phrase from Owen's work or even the Loeb Classical Library version: There are no complete hypertext versions available of just-the-translation other than the Oxford version. ResScholar (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

mw:MediaWiki 1.21/wmf9 released

The next increment of Mediawiki has been released in the past hours. Please report issues below. I hadn't been watching the release timetable, so when I have had a chance to look at what was in the release, I may be able to give some novice feedback. Not sure if others have had a chance to do so. To note that we have had a report of a change in behaviour of abuse filters, so please be on the alert. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

First cut of the list doesn't indicate anything major that may impact upon enWS, well not obvious that it will. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Scribunto extension roll out planned for February 18

Wikimedia Foundation has been working on improving performance and adding features to template pages within MediaWiki. As a result of this WMF developed a new Scribunto extension for MediaWiki which enables Lua scripting language for templates. The developers are confident about the extension's maturity and it was decided that Scribunto is going to be deployed to this wiki in the first batch. The deployment will begin on February 18 and will simply add a feature. Please be so kind and spread the word about the deployment on your wiki. If you are interested in converting current templates to Lua, please see more information and submit your feedback to Lua page on Meta. Regards, Kozuch (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

To note that this extension has been rolled out, resulting in the creation of the new namespace Modulewith its associated talk (ns: 828, 829). The namespace is for code Lua/Scribunto code, just like Templates, though with heaps more grunt. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment on annotations and derivative works

A Request for Comment (RfC) page has been started for Annotations and derivative works. This is intended to determine the detail of Wikisource policy regarding annotations, translations, comparisons and any other form of derivative work. From the Derivative works proposal, there is a consensus that some form of derivative works are within our scope in general. This is intended to define the detail.

Anyone is encouraged to comments on any of the topics on the page. The topics are based on comments made in the derivative works proposal and in past discussions. Anyone is free to add new topics to the RfC if required.

I apologise for the long-winded and over-detailed nature of this discussion (Wikisource's first RfC of this kind). However, the topic was very contentious in the past and will likely cause problems in the future if we don't do something. At least this way we will know where we stand on the matter. If nothing else, we will be able to point future users to this page for reference. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am still reading through the work, but great job Adam! JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposals

Changing MediaWiki:Newarticletext

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Some editnotices have been created to inform users about header templates.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The following piece of text is fine for all namespaces.

This page does not exist yet; you can create it by typing in the box below and saving. If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button.

After it, some namespace-specific text may be shown:

Namespace	Text
Main (non-subpage)	Editing help: Adding texts – Subpages – Header – Transclusion – Copyright tags – Categorization – Interlanguage links.
Main (subpage)	Editing help: Adding texts – Subpages – Header – Transclusion.
Author	Editing help: Author pages.
Index	Editing help: Index pages.
Page	Editing help: Formatting conventions – Page status. If no text layer is available, click the OCR button. To open and close the header and footer, toggle under "Proofread tools".
Portal	Editing help: Portals – Portal classification.

--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

 Support although I might expand "Editing help" a little to make it clearer to a new, casual visitor. Possibly just "If you need help editing, please see:" and then into the list, or move Help:Editing into the list with the other help pages, so: "If you need help, please see: Editing – " etc. (Sorry for the delay, I missed this proposal until now.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have actually started adding Editnotice components to provide ability to manually preload templates, and I have done it for main ns and author ns. I have already added those links. As time allows I will add more, and make them available to user pages. You can see more from Template:Editnotices — billinghurst sDrewth 04:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

To note that I have now created the editnotices at the Namespace level — Main: Header; Talk: Textinfo; Author: Author; Portal: Portal header; Help: & Wikisource: Process header — billinghurst sDrewth 15:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I also added Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Portal talk. Note that Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Portal preloads the wrong header.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing portal review system

Currently, all portals at least theoretically should be reviewed; it was an idea early in the process. There is a header parameter, a category and a talk page template to facilitate this. However, this has not happened since the portal migration and I don't expect it to happen in the future. Further, there doesn't seem to be any drawbacks from this lack of review. Marking and tracking portals as unreviewed may therefore give a false, negative impression to readers. So, I am proposing removing the parameter and associated category. (The talk page template may be useful in the future for other things, so I am not including it in this proposal.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don't. I am well aware that I have created some tentative portal entries which could benefit from review (if there ever was one!) Would it not be far better to use this opportunity to generate some interest (and share expertise) in actually reviewing a few existing portals, and marking them as such? I am certainly willing to have a go, if given a couple of pointers as to what is expected... MODCHK (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Any portals I created, definitely could use a review. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This could happily sit as a Maintenance of the Month activity. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, proposal withdrawn. I will sort something out MotM-wise soon. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice decision. Some alignment to the LCC for portals is imperative from my perspective. Just wish it was easier to do. We could do with a decent lookup, and some simple dot points to step through (though I will hazard a guess that it isn't that easy and 1000 librarians are lining up to rabbit punch me). — billinghurst sDrewth 12:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Add portal ns: to be a default search

Proposal

• I would like to propose that we have the Portal: namespace (ns:100) included in the default search for English Wikisource.

— billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Background

At this point of time the namespaces that are searched by default (users not logged in, or unchanged by users through preferences) are:

• Main (ns:0)
• Author (ns:102, WS specific)
• Index (ns:106, WS specific)

We are now utilising Portal namespace significantly more, and it is one of our feeders into certain articles, I would like to propose that we add a bugzilla request to include Portal (ns:100) to the default configuration. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Search

• Configuration data can be found at InitialiseSettings.php and search for wgNamespacesToBeSearchedDefault and scroll to '+enwikisource'
• If we did this, we could consider moving the Wikisource:Authors pages collection to the Portal: namespace (leaving xwiki redirects?) so they are found in searches, and to take them from the WS project namespace> (thought bubble)
• A second proposal will follow about Portal: ns as a "content namespace" — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion: Search

I believe you are saying that by making this change, default search parameters will find items on portals that are not on main or author pages. Is that correct? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Search — Indication of 'Support' / 'Oppose'

• support as proposer — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support, although I'm biased about portals. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support — Makes sense. And I'm OK with changes in the default preferences that come "down from server" (i.e. the .PHP file) more so than something that is set locally for all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The Page namespace should be added as well, since transcluding pages does not make them searchable.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Derivative works

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: General consensus is in support of derivative works in theory. Now on to the second part to determine the detail. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

---

This is the first of a two-part proposal. The second part will involve haggling over details. This is just a simple support/oppose question: Does Wikisource allow certain derivative works?

Derivative works are new, user-generated works based on other, pre-existing works. They are generally about making use of the wiki format to add value to these works. This would be a slight departure from Wikisource's stated policy of only allowing sourced, faithful reproduction of pre-existing texts. The list of allowed derivative works will be controlled; the current list is:

1. Annotations - examples: Category:Wikisource annotations (many wikilinked texts not included here)
2. Comparisons - examples: Category:Comparative texts
3. Translations - examples: Category:Wikisource translations

All three already exist on Wikisource but we do not yet have any agreed policies. Annotation (everything from wikilinks to additional maps and diagrams) in particular has been disputed for over a year now. That dispute is the reason I am making the proposal in this way, so we can resolve the yes/no question first and, if yes, move on to debating specifics when it is clear we are going to do this at all. For the others, Translation has remained just a proposed policy since 2006 and I only created the Comparison page a few days ago based on comments in a previous proposal.

Again, this is not about how we should do this, the question is if we will allow this or not. Please support, oppose or comment below. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Opinions

• Support as proposer. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment — I'm all in for discussing all of them but my support or opposition to formally allow one or more of the three classes would hinge on the specifics eventually reached by the community for each. One may consider this a Support vote if that is the prerequisite majority threshold needed to secure the discussion phase however. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  I'm going to take this as a weak support, on the grounds that it theoretically supports derivatives in general (in a non-binding sense, pending further discussion). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Per George. If it were clear to me that links are not regarded as annotations, then I would probably oppose. Hesperian 01:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  This I am taking as oppose, as noted. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Three distinct
  • Translations, in my observations has widespread community approval, numerous discussions have supported the retention of Wikisource translations here. Support promotion to a policy, under the belief that community approval exits, though as always details on the policy page may need minor updates. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Annotations Needs definition of scope, may fall into b:WB:WIW#Wikibooks_includes_annotated_texts. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

    The scope was part of the problem last time: neither Wikisource nor Wikibooks really defines it, nor where the tipping point should lie between the two projects. Nevertheless, that's for the second stage, if we decide that at least some derivatives are theoretically acceptable here under certain conditions. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Comparisons = Oppose Out of scope, a scholarly comparison would/could/should meet b:WB:WIW and should be hosted there. Anything else would be more appropriate at Wikipedia, or privately hosted. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support in principle the ability to have annotated works, though not to the detriment to the display of the original work in the main namespace, and similarly the output into exported books (electronic or paper). The technical ability may defeat the principle. For a purity sense, I would like for us to consider another namespace (Derivative: ns???) where we can house such works, though that comes with riders (not fully formed, and not even sure that completely technically possible). Further discussion held pending. Crowd-sourced translations have been determined to be housed here, and I can see that crowd-sourced annotations may too (conditions conditions conditions) providing we can find the right form to not detract from the original works. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• I would not treat them the same way, too.
  • Translations: Support as long as there are not many user-made translations of the same work. We should specify their maximum number (just one of each work in my opinion), and make exceptions only after discussion.
  • Annotations: Oppose since they are accepted on Wikibooks.
  • Comparisons: Oppose since versions are listed on the version page and can be opened, downloaded, or printed as you like.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• I would support this proposal, but only based on my interpretation of the underlying classifications. Translations of a source text into English for hosting here would be acceptable only if they match the intent of the original without the injection of bias. Comparisons would in my mind be like what is described on the linked page, with different versions of a text shown side-by-side with differences highlighted; no analysis—this would simply be a useful tool. Annotations is the tricky one between Wikisource and my home project Wikibooks. Analysis and expansion of a source text's content in annotations in order to educate on a particular subject would be, in my mind, the realm of Wikibooks. What I picture at Wikisource would be annotations that help the reader understand the original on its own without going to a very high level. For instance, words that have changed in meaning since the original work's publication or words no longer in common usage could have notes as to what they would have meant when first written. If I'm looking to pin down a "tipping point" between Wikisource/Wikibooks annotations, one might be denotation versus connotation. The former at Wikisource, focusing on definitions, and the latter at Wikibooks, focusing on associations or suggestions. Adrignola (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Thought bubble about 'comparative. What could well be possible is to look for a 'twist' to the implementation of mw:Extension:DoubleWiki. The extension is used to compare two language versions of a work (interwiki), maybe it is possible to implement a comparative intrawiki, two side-be-side versions of the work as a display function, rather than as an artificial construct. If it could be done easily, then great, if a whole lot of work, and it doesn't prevent works being done. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

  I was thinking along the same lines but held off on mentioning it until some obvious issues were addressed. First and formost, this extension is another ThomasV abandoned step-child left to nobody-in-particular's care without much notice or guidance left by the coder. Thanks to that, it is woefully behind the latest changes and greatest advancements. In spite of all that, the extension still "works" pretty much as advertised -- but since there are no agreed upon standards & practices between the various language WS wikis -- its usefulness has been hit or miss. Its been under-utilized in general since its introduction.

  For those unfamilar with the extension, see an example with it in action using one of our local versions of Poe's, The Raven, see HERE. The functionality might render better for some if viewed from the French Wiki as the primary site back to us instead... see HERE for that option. In short, this extension might open up options on more than just the comparison front and deserves further attention. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Annotations, Translations and Comparisons. Annotations: I support wikilinks and deannotations, which George classes as an annotation. As for regular annotations, I only remember seeing one here, The Annotated Strange Case Of Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde. I don't remember the concept ever taking off, but would be glad to examine any more examples available to view. ResScholar (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I found the Annotations category and added a link to the category (along with the others) to serve as examples next to the C-A-T list, then added seven more annotations (which have wikilinks only). ResScholar (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support all. WS should be open to some text supplimentation, that does not meet the standard of a seperate WB.--T. Mazzei (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Community portal

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: The community portal has been replaced.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

---

A quick proposal: I am going to replace the current Wikisource:Community Portal with this new community portal (and change it to sentence case, as it appears in the sidebar, in the process) unless anyone has any objections. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I like it, I like it. The colour is friendlier and the layout is simpler and cleaner. — Ineuw talk 22:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks OK. My only remark is about center alignment of entries in the boxes on the left side. I would prefer left-aligned entries, as they "dance" less when you resize the window.--Mpaa (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ditto, to the Ok and left align, suggestions of Mpaa. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Done --Erasmo Barresi (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The new Community portal is now live. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Portal classification

Class I: Texts by Country has got six subclasses, but the only widely used one is Subclass IN: Nations and Portal:Nations is a redirect to Portal:Texts by Country. This is a proposal to remove subclasses from Class I. The classification of a national portal would be simply:

 | class     = I

while Portal:Cornwall (and similar ones) would be classified:

 | class     = I
 | parent    = England

If the proposal is accepted, I will:

• reclassify the portals, using the {{national}} template,
• update Portal:Index and the {{Library of Congress Classification}} template,

while Portal:Counties, Portal:States, Portal:Towns and Cities and the {{LCC Class I}} template will need to be deleted.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not certain that it is a good idea, though I will admit to not having the greatest knowledge of the hierarchy. I think that the portal hole to which you refer is more due to us not having done the extra porta page for the sub-national, rather than there not being a need. Portals are slower to mature, and are one where we still could do with some expert guidance, and some excellent organisers. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Two-factor Actions

Personally I consider one of the bedrock strengths of WikiSource is the use of the ProofreadPage model where the agreement of at least two users is required before a page may be considered "acceptable."

I don't want to go too overboard with this, but what is the communities feeling about extending this idea into other areas?

We already have the concept of "unreviewed" Portals (although on a personal level more guidance on how to "complete" reviews would be nice to have!)

May I be so bold as to suggest a two/three-step model for block reviews. A recent example might illustrate:

1. I (a user) happened to note an odd "anonymous" edit to these pages: Author:Banjo Paterson and Author talk:Banjo Paterson. Suppose I (somehow) raise a "please review" request.
2. An administer acts upon this and perhaps decides to block said user. They raise a "please block" request.
3. A second administrator sees the block request and review justification and acts upon it.

The first step may be omitted if the initial observation was by a supervisory individual (as in fact happened in the case of this example―thanks Beeswaxcandle!)

I reiterate, I do not wish to go overboard with this, and mandate program enforcement of these things. Simple procedural rules for "normal exceptions" might be quite adequate; with suitable let-out clauses for genuine emergency situations. Guidelines please―not bureaucracy!

Is this worth pursuing at all? MODCHK (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussions about proposals to vary the blocking policy would be best at Wikisource talk:Blocking policy, and a note here if we are having a stronger attempt at an update.

In short, to me a block is a few steps down the defence line, not the first. I wouldn't favour the approach as default, but would always encourage admins to err on the side of safety, and try to eliminate wherever possible collateral damage. All users, and especially admins, patrolling/looking through Special:RecentChanges should see account blocks, and have a glance, for interest alone, let alone light review. Good for users as we love to spread the joy and promote them to admins; and for admins as that overview is beneficial element in a community. [I removed the "in long"] — billinghurst sDrewth 06:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Addendum. The admins have the tools, and trusted by the community to do certain things. Relying on admins is not the purpose nor the benefit, as all community users are able to do undo, discuss, and recommend for deletion. As I believe that I have said before, the tools are a hierarchy, the people are not; we don't want a high bar to jump to be an administrator; it is knowing when to use the tools, and when not to, and to know how to use your local understanding of the wishes of the community,; our trust in people to keep within their limitations. We don't get it right every time, and as we are all humans, that has to be okay, and understood, as we look to intention and purpose. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I would also add that any autoconfirmed editor who notices a bad edit can undo it and any editor can tag a page for speedy deletion with {{sdelete|reason}}. Putting this template on a page will bring it to the attention of an administrator who will evaluate the request and act on it as appropriate. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of dragging this discussion back to its origin, I seriously meant should the community think about how to utilise the strengths of check-and-balance procedures for all sorts of situations. Perhaps using the block case was a mistake at this moment in time. I meant to generalise the issue, not bog down in sensitive matters. MODCHK (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

From a purely logistical point of view, requiring two admins for a block is problematic. Because we don’t have 24/7 coverage with two admins here. Nor is there anyway to know at any given time how many admins are available. Jeepday (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I reiterate, the intended purpose of this proposal was neither sanguinary, nor to make life difficult in cases where backup truly is temporarily unavailable. ("I did this; when somebody else gets a chance would they please approve the action" is an entirely acceptable workaround.) I merely wish to draw attention to the great strength that (small, intelligent) group action has over that of individuals.

On the other hand, I would fight tooth and claw against over-expansion. (Committees may be good at policy but not necessarily action.) MODCHK (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────┘
Oh, and the other aspect is this idea which I realise I completely omitted to express:

• This is a golden opportunity to disseminate knowledge!

In reviewing any given action, both parties are effectively bouncing ideas off one another, and the more experienced member is being reminded why and how their otherwise seasoned (unthinking? habitual?) response is the proper one in the given situation.

Blue sky or what? MODCHK (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The block logs are available for public review. There is more then one avenue of accessing them, the easiest would be through the link Special:BlockList which is available from the Special:SpecialPages link in the toolbox of links. There is also the block log which is available via Special:Log and selecting Block log. All it takes is a desire to review. It requires admin access to actually block a user, and all are accountable to the community for actions taken. The tools is fairly robust and it looks like I (as Jeepday) have blocked 2 users here, (and a few hundred at Wikipedia, wow). There is no hard fast rule for when to block or decline, nor any strict guidelines on how long to block for. In every case, there is a volunteer who has been given the admin tools trying to make a guess at what will have the most positive impact on the project as a whole. If you have an interest I would encourage you to discuss any questions you have about a block with the blocking admin. I get questions at w:User talk:Jeepday fairly regularly, though usually the question is "why did you not block user:foobar for life?". And of course if you don’t get a satisfactory response you can bring your questions to Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I was loosely aware of said logs, but thank you in any case for the links.

However, I still feel there is a world of difference between:

• "The world could/might(not?) have looked at this action; and thus far has not actually complained about anything," and
• Another party has actually stepped forward and announced "I also approve of this action."

Obviously I have used slanted language to emphasise the point, but the first alternative could be accused of encouraging any dubious party to hold their peace for fear of ridicule; whereas is there is a culture of the latter then a lack of response indicates a degree of community reserve.

As an aside, as a user comparatively unfamiliar with the use of the logs I sometimes find I confuse log updates of this nature with updates to a page: Something pops up in a watchlist; my mind fleetingly notes (if I am paying enough attention) the change comment and then I confuse myself by not being able to find the associated change. Eventually the message filters into my tiny mind to check "View logs for this page" and there is the "missing" entry. (Personal early-onset Alzheimer's or is this a common experience? Others may judge.)

I trust this goes some way to explaining my attitude. If there really is a consensus this proposal is likely to be too onerous in practice I am of course happy to let the idea slide. MODCHK (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

And (sigh!) for the third time «It Isn't All About Blocking.» I would like to maybe trigger some thought about extending the existing review culture for Author: pages; for Portal:s; for ... basically everything on WS outside of User:, talk and Page: space. For both item integrity and training purposes. Do I need to put this in idiotic management language for the message to get through? Mentoring relationships (I think I shall go off and be quietly ill now.) MODCHK (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

In any case (blocking, Author or Portal) every edit/change is publicly available. For new editors they show up on Special:RecentChanges as un-patrolled until someone feels they have sufficient experience to generally make the best choice and promotes them to auto-patrolled. No matter what level of volunteer. There is progressively less ongoing oversight (though all remains available) because we assume at the next level you will make the best choice you can, and ask for help if your not sure.

We don't have a structured mentoring program, though it has been implemented here and there, now and again. The w:Wikipedia:Mentorship exists but, I only occasionally see it put to use.

Again it comes down to logistics, at every level we have significantly more tasks then resources. To expand validation as a mandatory task you would need to start with rationale on why it is required (voluntary and background validation, are present and functioning). I hear your frustration and I hear you have an idea that could result in higher quality in some areas of Wikisource. But I am not hearing about a specific list of problems that need corrected. You would also need to create motivation for volunteers to spend time on this instead of other tasks. You might want to look at w:Wikipedia:Approved article revisions which deals with a similar idea for validation.

In short you have an idea that would benefit Wikisource, but you have not shown a cost benefit analysis that convinces anyone to support it. Do we have room for improvement? = Yes. Is there a specific problem that needs to be addressed and rationale sufficient to neglect other tasks in pursuit of the new task? = Unclear. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 18:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. This argument and criticism I completely accept. Apologies regarding frustration―I was beginning to feel people were fixating on the specific at the cost of the general, and buzzword introduction frequently invokes if not nausea then at least healthy revulsion.

In my humble experience mentoring is rarely ever paid anything more than mere lip service. Also interesting that your other link is all but tagged as a dead article.

I unconditionally withdraw the proposal. MODCHK (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you from setting up a Wikisource Mentoring program. In my experience successful programs require three items.

1. An established program that offers the opportunities for Mentors and Mentees to meet.

2. A group of willing Mentors

3. One or more Mentees.

JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 19:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Only three disabilities from my personal perspective:

1. No ability.
2. No patience.
3. I could not keep a straight face.

(O.K. I accept nobody need know about the last one. MODCHK (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC))

BOT approval requests

90 day warnings posted

The following bots and owners have not been active on Wikisource for 2 or more years, they have been given notice to demonstrate requirement for bot flag. The 90 days per Wikisource:Bots#Confirmation will expire on or about April 5, 2013.

• Note in cases where a English Wikisource bot owner account was not readily available, notice is only left at the bot talk page.

• User:555.bot

• User:ChessBOT

• User:CSNbot - User:Cneubauer (owner) has approved removal of bot flag.

• User:MediaWiki default

• User:Polbot - User:Quadell (owner) has approved removal of bot flag.

• User:PoliticalBot

• User:Riccardobot

• User:Schlep (bot)

• User:VolkovBot

• User:Wolfbot

 Comment about process. 90 days seems too long. 60 days should be more than adequate. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

 Comment second, and we should have not required a vote "unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority" when the results where unanimous remove with 3 votes, in the confirmation. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I have converted it to a vote, and will just leave it open. To me that just gets closed by a 'crat later. I think that we can review and make suggestions for the next round, after it is closed. It was a good start. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggested a couple minor changes at Wikisource_talk:Bots#Confirmation to the process based on the above. Jeepday (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for approval: Bot run for migration {{edition}} to edition = yes

I have suggested at Template talk:Header that we migrate from using {{edition}} to the {{header}} parameter edition = yes, and I have followed up with a proposed bot notification job at Wikisource:Bot_requests#Migrating from {{edition}} to edition = y. There has been no comment to the contrary. As this will be a significant change (4+k pages), and is a change to how we have instructed people Help:Beginner's guide to reliability, Help:Beginner's guide to sources, Wikisource:Text quality, Wikisource:Template messages/Texts, Template:Textinfo, and of course Template:Header I am preferring to bring this fully to community for their guidance. Examples:

• before
• after

I have run about 50 pages through under my username, and another ~50 through as sDrewthbot, to no observable issues, though happy for others to prod and poke. As I have just found that the template can take a parameter {{edition}}, I will skip all such pages, and they can be part of a different discussion as we would need to updated {{plain sister}} to undertake that. If rhis can be adequately resolved we would then deprecate the template.

Accordingly, I proposing that this as a new bot request to the community for its approval as per Wikisource:Bots. Tests have been run, and appear to me do the task as expressed above. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Closing as no objections; any further communications about this matter will be at WS:BR — billinghurst sDrewth 13:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Robbie the Robot

I would like a bot flag for User:Robbie the Robot. I have been worried I might be starting to spam Special:RecentChanges with some AWB-enabled edits. The bot account is just so I can use AWB without this being an issue. At the moment I am moving sister links into the header templates but I intend to use it for other, similiar, maintenance and clean up tasks. Per Wikisource:Bots:

• Purpose: General maintenance and clean-up tasks
• Scope: All namespaces, no limitations
• Tool: AWB
• Degree of human interaction involved: Semi-automated

Thanks - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No objection from me as an RC patroller, but you could just give yourself the flood flag when and as you need it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment I would think that we would want to see RtR in action prior to granting it the bot flag, or some other demonstration that you know how to control it, eg. it has bot status elsewhere. After that, I would think that we would hold you to similar standards for the rest of us using AWB. Major maintenance tasks are documented on the bot page, or a subpage that is what I have been doing with sDrewthbot (talk • contribs)). That

  • for ad hoc minor tasks that they have an adequate edit summary of what is the purpose;
  • beyond minor tasks that they additionally are noted at WS:BR for the community's information, and
  • really significant tasks (major changes) are additionally brought here for community's input, and/or approval

  As a general statements, 1) I much prefer to see bots running on separate accounts, rather than on user accounts, unless there is a rights reason pertinent, even then I still prefer bots to be separate, makes edit review easier; 2) when about to do a run, I have been running the initial changes through as my primary account, as a proof of concept in the scripting, somewhat as an alert of action, and then swapping to the bot account when I see things running smoothly. In short, we don't regulate bots per task per enWP; the consequence is that we wish to be kept informed of and consulted upon their use. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I've run some edits, which can be seen at Special:Contributions/Robbie the Robot. I ran the same module on my own account for a short time and I saw no problems there either. The current operation is standardising sister links. I will announce this at Wikisource:Bot requests, as described, when and if Robbie is approved. Regarding the flood flag, I thought it would be simpler and clearer to use a separate account for this. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Support edits that I reviewed were fine, and believe that compliance with standard protocols, and obvious knowledge of our systems, makes this supportable. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Granted. [1] Hesperian 10:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

User:ThomasBot

Procedural request for approval, failed reconfirmation, per current rules triggers an automatic vote for continued bot flag approval. Loss of flag does not prevent edits, only impacts recent change visibility. Jeepday (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Owner reports moving on [2], no expectation the bot will function on WS again. Jeepday (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose -- same reasons as given above. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose ^^^ — billinghurst sDrewth 12:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Bot flag removed. [3] Hesperian 10:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Help

• See Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help

[Some] Index page images in The kernel and the husk not appearing on the right hand side in my browser

Can someone please look into the above issue? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... One page I alighted on had the image, so I went either forward or backward (can't remember which), and when I alighted back on the original page, the image disappeared was no longer visible on the page. Some kind of glitch? Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering further... This is an issue for comparison purposes, as I have made many mistakes in proofreading, and I do not want to mislead any reader if a typo I make or leave gives the original intent of the text a whole other meaning. Seems this should be addressed pronto. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The images appear in edit mode. By the way, has the layout in edit mode changed recently? Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit raw watchlist

What is the purpose of the above "raw watchlist"? Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have 500 pages of a book on your watch list and you want to remove them; with ’Edit watchlist’, you have to check each page; with ’Edit raw watchlist’ you can select all of them with your mouse, remove them, and save the changes. Other magic options are available depending on your skill set. Jeepday (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

But why would you want to rename titles in the watchlist? A personalized reference system (as it seems to me to be) seems logical—it reminds me of renaming a folder on your computer, but what purpose(s) might a page such as that serve here? And does only the specific User have access to the "raw watchlist" or do admins and above also have access to the pages? Seems to me that Users personalizing page names in this manner would give others (if any) a bit too much insight into the personal preferences of the User (not that that doesn't happen with regard to other aspects of this site—such as choices of books to proofread, etc.), but seems to me that this goes a step further, and you should at least post a caveat (let the user beware) at the top of the page in red (similar to the large print at the top of the page when you are logged out and trying to edit in edit mode) to warn Users that others may have access to their personalized naming system, etc. This isn't a Facebook "like" list after all. Just a thought. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't let you rename titles in the watchlist - the raw watchlist is just a plain list of all pages that you watch. If you change a row in the raw watchlist from "Title A" to "Title B" then Title B will be added to your watchlist and Title A will be removed from it. There is no "personalized naming system"; it's just an alternative way to get at the same list that you see at the ordinary "View or edit watchlist" link. - Htonl (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

See w:Help:Watching pages -- "Ordinary users or administrators cannot tell what is in your watchlist, or who is watching any particular page. Publicly available database dumps do not include this information either. Only Developers who have access to the servers that hold the Wikipedia database could obtain this kind of information." Moondyne (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Editing your raw Watchlist happens without leaving information that other editors can see. Editing the list also does not change anything except the list itself. The key advantages of this tool are that (1) you can see what it is you've decided to watch, and (2) you can remove lots of items from the list in a single step, should you choose to do so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the explanations, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Noob needs help

Can someone familiar with the Weird Tales setup help this new user? Pages lack headers, and sometimes are oddly formatted redirects. I'm not going to be on-line much today, so I don't have time to help, but this user is working at a frenetic pace. So, an ounce of prevention and all that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I spent two and a half hours yesterday on their contributions and have asked user that headers be added—to no avail. Several of the additions yesterday were copyvio and a quick scan of today's contributions doesn't look much better. I'll see what I can do today, but I will have less time than yesterday. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Clipper Ship Era (1843-1869)

The Clipper Ship Era (1843-1869) would someone please fix this book so that the proofreading/validating blocks end up in the "mainspace" reading area that actually looks like a book? It's partially done but then it stops and I don't have any more patience to play around and experiment to get the danged thing working. —Maury (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

See The Clipper Ship Era/Chapter 7. Moondyne (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Moondyne, thank you so much for the reply and example. A portion is easy but I get confused about the chapter page numbers and when I tried I made things worse. I then went to Index and made it even more worse. I think I put everything back like it was but am not sure. What is this process called? —Maury (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess everyone has their own technique, but for me to assemble the line <pages index="The Clipper Ship Era.djvu" from=132 to=156 />, I did the following:

1. open the index page Index:The Clipper Ship Era.djvu
2. looking at the Contents panel, note the 1st page# for this chapter (note that this is the "real" page number and not the internal PAGE: number). For Ch7, its 100
3. find p.100 in the middle Pages block and hold the mouse over it. Jot down the PAGE: that appears inside the mouseover box (in this case its /132).
4. do the same for the last page number for the chapter (generally 1 less than the 1st page of the next chapter). ie. 119-1=118 which equates to /156)

I don't know what this process is called, but good luck!. Moondyne (talk) 05:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the process is either which is why I asked. It should have a name. I was thinking of finding it on Wikisource/Help and if it is not there it should be. Like all things when one doesn't know how to do something it's confusing but when one does know then it's easy. The name "Good Luck" would be a fine name for this process. Thank you again for helping me. This is the first one (presently named "Good Luck" ) I have ever worked on. —Maury (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

see w:Wikipedia:Transclusion, JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The Clipper Ship Era (1843-1869) Would somebody please just fix the simplistic blasted thing? I have a long day of work ahead and NASA needs my physics skills working on the "coefficient of linear expansion" of various metals heated to various degrees so the nuts and bolts on rockets won't blast apart when expanded by any given temperature in centigrade/kelvin. —Maury (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Moondyne (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Moondyne. I want to tell you something interesting. I actually Dream of editing. In dreams I edit and never have a problem editing, I just easily edit. I dream of editing many nights. —Maury (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear oh dear. Noting that my brain can be thinking in terms of IP addresses, and IP range blocks. [Kill kill kill the wretched vandals and spambots] — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Line numbers

Hey. In proofreading over at the Icelandic Wikisource I came across these line numbers. This is not poetry and the line division is not vital. It is probably conceived as a reading aid for that particular version (it's a 1909 version of a work originally made in 1664). What would be a proper way to deal with this? --Bjarki S (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that every page (granted, I only looked at two pages and am assuming) begins line numbering anew. Does any section of the text refer back to pages/lines of text in reference? If so, it seems as though some sort of notation might be in order—perhaps using sidenotes somehow as opposed to basic line numbering (which wouldn't work really, in my opinion). I dunno. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

My comments would be that the line numbering is the artefact of editor's usually where the work is being used as a reference. To reproduce them in situ is difficult, especially as forcing a width onto a web document without knowing the reading device is a pain in the bum. If there is value in the references (ie. evidence that someone, somewhere did it as a commentary or study guide) I would keep them, have them as anchors, and then in the notes section put link to the anchor points, but maybe keep them invisible. Alternatively, if there is no value in the anchor points, forget it and just do the text. Depends on how much you wish to fiddle. If someone wishes to come and put them in later, so be it, it is a wiki. As a balloon thought, dropping some easy invisible code like {{Æisag|$1=1|$2=5}} {{Æisaga|1|10}} ... which you would make as a null template allows easy formatting for the links for this work at a later time. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I went with ignoring them mostly. I made an empty template to keep track of the numbers in case anybody wants to do something with them at a later point. --Bjarki S (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely this is similar to The Canterbury Tales/The Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale which uses {{line}}; or alternately Page:The Wasteland.djvu/14 using {{pline}}? MODCHK (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

MODCHK, your examples are in poetry form, not prose—and with line breaks (which lend themselves better to line numbering). Bjarki S's example is in prose form, as he/she has attested to above. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. In which my suggestion degenerates into... exactly what Billinghurst says above. I would suggest simply ignoring the numbering component altogether. MODCHK (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Off [WS]-topic question about 'long s' use

From MODCHK's Talk page:

...Which would you use for upper case use at the beginning of a word? 'long s' (ſ) or 'descending long s' (esh, ʃ)—or something else? Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I am by no means authoritative on this, but my understanding is "ſ" may be used to start a word, or be embedded within it (e.g. "ſadneſs"), but I do not believe either form is permitted to be the final letter of a word. I suspect most documents using this were of a vintage where upper/lower case was not particularly observed. I recommend asking further, and would be interested if you get any useful information! MODCHK (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)...

To clarify, using MODCHK's example of the word "ſadneſs",— If the title (modern-day) of a poem, short story, etc., was "In Sadness", and one wanted to make a "play" on the upper case letter "S" by making it "old-fashioned", which rendering of the 'long s' would one use? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A closer reading of w:Long s (which Londonjackbooks located/provided prior to this discussion moving to the Scriptorium) debunks just about everything I stated above (cringe!) Unfortunately, neither does it answer her question … MODCHK (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the anſwer to the queſtion is "neither": you'd uſe upper-caſe "S". "Long s", whether deſcending or not, was a lower-caſe-only form. - Htonl (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Darn! Well—there goes my play on words idea. Learned something in the process though, so no loss :) Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe that bit of info could be added to the WP articles for ſ and ʃ (esh). But not by me; I wouldn't know how to phrase it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I sometimes feel that we should turn our direction around how we use "long S" to have an essay with it that pulls in all the {{long s}}hit that has been spent/wasted/thrashed through the time. We can have a help page/section and in the WS: ns an article, call it "In the throeſ of long s" —unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) .

Poorly disguised cursing notwithstanding, such displays of unique personality is in part why I like to edit here :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey! There was a gem of sense and poignancy in among the silliness. We have spent lots of time over the 'eons discussing long s, so an essay to cover the points of view, and how we arrived at our position isn't a completely wrong thought bubble. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

How would you link this?

On this page—in the ref-follow where it states, "see Poems, vol. i. p. 5, note 1", I want to link to the actual note which is transcribed here. Can someone please show me how that can best be done? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've put an anchor in the note and then added a link back to it from the volume 8 page. I'm sure there are other ways of doing this, but this was my first thought on how to do it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. So for subsequent references/links to notes, I should continue with anchors note2, note3, etc. (only two in the case of "Death of a Young Lady", but just as a 'for example') as they correspond with the actual reference numbers on each Mainspace page, right? But, I can also "reuse" anchor note1 with a different poem (i.e., Mainspace page), right? Sorry if I am being confusing. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I would only add anchors for notes that you need to link to. The name of the anchor is arbitrary as long as it's unique for the mainspace page, so yes reuse anchor names on different poems. I just selected note1 so that it would make some sense to both of us. By the way, transcluded page numbers are anchors already, so no need to create anchors for pages. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Odd equal sign problem

While editing, "Short title=A" or similar keeps turning into "Short titleĀ". Is this a problem with Wikisource or the browser? How do I fix this? - Presidentman (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The browser is Mozilla Firefox 18.0.1. - Presidentman (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Check in your Preferences/Gadgets if this is enabled: "Keyboard shortcuts to type special characters (works in Firefox, Chrome). [example : ^ae -> æ ]"--Mpaa (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It was. Thanks! - Presidentman (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to leave the keyboard shortcut on and type the =A, type the A and then put the = in front of the A. Jeepday (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The Biographical Dictionary of America

Earlier today I found several illustrated volumes of "The Biographical Dictionary of America." They were placed on en.WS by Billinghurst. I need to know if the two-column pages have to be edited as two-column pages (which I don't know how to do) or if I can edit them as one page. These several volumes look very good and as far as I have read on what I know the volumes are historically correct. —Maury (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Single column. Double columns makes the transcluded text nearly impossible to use on a desktop computer and even worse on an eReader. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Good! Thank you Beeswaxcandle. —Maury (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitely what BWC said. A case of KISS, and not to render a form that was useful for a book form but doesn't translate well to a longitudinal web pages, or other variable width/variable page formats. The whole set of those works is uploaded User:Billinghurst/The Biographical Dictionary of America

Dotted lines, what is the best way to do it?

I'm looking for a way of formatting these tables. Which template should I use to get the same effect of those spaced dots? Thanks in advance!--Micru (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The templates that we have are at Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Dotted. My comment is always why use them, to me they are cumbersome and less than attractive clunky things. I find them somewhat problematic in their rendition, and I generally choose not to use them. They are typographic elements, presumably not prescribed by the authors of the works. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Concur with billinghurst, and the columns question/answer above also applies here. You can put 7 under 6 instead of next to 1. Jeepday (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, maybe you are right about that not being very relevant for the reader. It will save work and headaches not to copy it, that for sure.--Micru (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Combining pages

I'm working on proofreading Index:United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_A6719.pdf. I'm wondering if it is acceptable to combine the pages into one. Wikisource:Style_guide#Formatting says, "A Wikisource page does not usually correspond directly to a printed page, but rather to an article, chapter, or section."

One benefit of doing this is that the footnotes can keep their original numbering. I'm not sure if I can make the footnotes on Page:United Nations General Assembly Resolution A6719.pdf/2 start at 2. Superm401 - Talk 04:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Do the references separately for each page in the Page: namespace. When the pages are transcluded into the single mainspace page they will be in a single sequence. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Where should I put the <references /> tags? Superm401 - Talk 05:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

See Help:Footnotes and endnotes for full details. In the Page: namespace the tag goes in the footer field. In the mainspace it goes at the end of the text before the licence template and any categories. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. Superm401 - Talk 06:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

.js

Why won't the running header script at User:Moondyne/common.js work for me anymore? Moondyne (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Shove Hesperian IMNSHO. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ref revert help

Can I get a second opinion on a ref revert situation (where the footnote text appears on a page following the reference note—in this case, reference note #2). I followed direction for such a situation in the past, but I would like to know what other options there might be at this time (if any). Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Try to see if it looks ok. I put an empty ref in the first page and a ref follow in the next.--Mpaa (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Need help keeping text inline

On this page, last line... I need the sentence beginning "It might be..." to be in line with the paragraph which precedes it, beginning "Knowledge...". You can see rendering in the Main. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

How is this for a <div>-mad solution? Any improvements in form? MODCHK (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Mad as Max. Thanks. I'll figure out how it works now. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Combines white coloration to a width of space(?). How would that render on a background with color (grey or otherwise?) Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Got me. How about this? MODCHK (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A benevolent thanks to you :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Umm, why not use {{hii}} and just shunt the paragraph in by the amount in the first variable? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The formatting would break across the pages (something like that)... There is no Template:Hii/s/e. Would that matter? Keep in mind I don't know much of what I speak... Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Were there an hii/s, e, I think the 'setting' would be {{hanging indent inherit|1.2|.8}}. What are the positives/negatives of either method? Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Two points:

• Since {{hii}} stands alone, there is no real need for an hii/s form (If it existed it would in fact be identical to hii. In either case the block should be ended with {{div end}}.)
• As the line needs to be shunted left, the first parameter to hii needs to be negative. I suggest: {{hanging indent inherit|-0.6|0.8}} might be appropriate.

Neither approach is entirely "pretty." Mine has invisible text; Beeswaxcandle's involves arcane constants. Both cases may trip up the unwary/next editor. Entirely your choice. MODCHK (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess whichever solution is most technically straight-forward and logical (two areas I am deficient in) would be the winner, but I don't know which that would be. Your solution (to my way of thinking, which might not be right [my way of trying to not offend]) seems more of a solution-in-the-absence-of-a-solution solution, whereas BWC's suggested template seems to be made for such a purpose. I guess we can see how hii renders and go from there. Would you mind applying it to the pages? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Not entirely happy with coding of the affected next page ({{hii|0|0}} place holder in header seems strange), but the result seems to look O.K. on my browser, and transclusion into Main is not affected. MODCHK (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional note. Shortest coding I could come up with for Beeswaxcandle's solution is nett one character longer than the alternative. Cost accountancy at its finest! MODCHK (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

As soon as I saved above, I realised I could have made it shorter two more characters. Sorry BWC for maligning you. Not going to make that change as just too silly. MODCHK (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

In my browser, the line reading "It might be..." is a bit too far to the right in the Main. How is it in yours? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I tweaked your settings (to -0.8|0.8). It looks right in my browser... Yours? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Pre-tweak: File:Kernel and Husk 374-5.png Post-tweak: File:Kernel and Husk 374-5-post.png

I really don't see a significant difference. MODCHK (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It was more noticeable in my browser than apparently in yours (from what I can see). I'm good as is. Thanks—I know you thought you were FIN with it... Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The issues between -0.6em and -0.8em are mostly around which italic font a browser uses. The degree of slope does lead the eye to see things as aligned or not quite aligned. As a result I would usually make sure it worked for a roman font and then add the italics.

I wasn't so much concerned with the number of characters that were used, as to creating a new solution when a viable one already existed. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

How do I format the contents and index pages in a work?

Please see heading? Work in question is - Index:Mediaevalleicest00billrich.djvu —unsigned comment by Sfan00 IMG (talk) .

I've done the TOC (p.ix) for you. For the index, copy the formatting used in Page:A Brief History of Modern Philosophy.djvu/324 ff. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

{{nop}} vice <br />

With regard to the end of this page, and the beginning of the page that follows: In order for the desired break (line height?) between paragraphs to occur in the Main, a {{nop}} needs to be placed with two blank lines preceding it. Is that the desired formatting technique in such a situation? For poetry, where a page ends between stanzas, I have been using <br /> with one line preceding it, and it has the same effect as {{nop}} with two lines preceding. What would the suggested method be in both cases? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Either works, so there is no "correct" way. I use two blank lines and a nop for end of stanza poetry as well. I should point out that Help:Footnotes and endnotes#Endnotes says that if endnotes will be on the same main page as their references they should be treated as <ref></ref> with a {{smallrefs}} as usual. If the main page will be subpaged, then references should have their own subpage. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

BWC, I made some comments here about endnotes in reference to your above comment, but I moved them over to your Talk page in a section that deals also with footnotes. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Main namespace article header problem

This is a multi part article, where the navigator to the various parts is always placed in the 'notes' section of the header. In this case, this article also belongs to the 'Judaism' portal but the two parameters visually overlap one another. Can someone suggest a solution? Thanks.— Ineuw talk 23:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

... and the need for an all div-based, component-optional, mainspace header rears its ugly head once again. :-)

Off the top of my head, how about we remove the internal |portal=Judaism parameter and place the stand alonne {{Plain sister}} template after your running header in the notes field instead? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I support any solution. :-) — Ineuw talk 00:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

To be clear- I did not observe any overlap as I cycled through the article parts. It was always to the left and horizontally inline with the Portal banner (could use some padding however). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't overlap for me either, anyway I changed it to use {{float right}} as use of {{RunningHeader}} doesn't make sense to me (we continue to see the abuse misuse of that template). I have a number of concerns about the config and have expressed them to Ineuw separately. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

err.... "float" would work for the first and last pieces of the multi-part work but not the entries in between (got to click on the link at the provided 'start' page to see what he is getting at --> running header is no longer centered when all three links are provided). I do get your other points and agree; this point, however, at its core is the same problem I faced trying to insert a citation bar for legal-ish works using the standard table-based header as a foundation (sooner or later, something else extra or atypical will "conflict" with the new addition or the final rendering). -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Are bulk file replacements from external sites to Commons possible?

break-out secondary discussion not related to Proposed Deletion to here....

.... As an aside, the roadblock to full validation at this point is the lack of an OCR'd text-layer in the remaining 30 or so DjVu source files to be proofread. Archives.org has DjVus with text-layers ( more info ) but damn if I know how to smoothly replace that many existing files on Commons; any ideas? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Why replace them? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, because the existing source files have no embedded text-layers to proofread from. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Just upload new files with a good naming structure. If we think of that we were starting a fresh then how would we handle it? Lots of other thoughts, but these are the more helpful. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Wha?? Source file naming has nothing to do with the eventual naming framework used in the mainspace. I just don't think the current scheme reflects the report's item-levels and the sub-divisions under them as best as possible was all. Part I should be the 1st sub-page, under the base, A should be under that, i should be next under that, folowed by a and so on. We do it for Volumes & Chapters and redirect the titles to them for plain-old books all the time so I don't see your point at all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
Long Story; Short - There are ~30 files on Commons that are part of a larger transcription project here on en.WS [The Pentagon Papers]. None of the files have embedded text-layers to extract and proofread from. The same files, but with slightly different file names, exist on Internet Archive. They all have text layers.

The question is... do I have to download/upload each one to replace the current source files or is there some way to automate & batch the importation (and needed renaming) of all the files from the IA server to the Commons server without my po' ol' & slo' connection having to get involved in all that jazz? TIA -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If you provide me with a list of IA keys and the names of the corresponding Commons DjVu files, I will be happy to modify a script and bulk download and upload them. (But I won't be able to get to this until the weekend.) Hesperian 01:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Full-file paths/names on Commons like used in WGET I assume? And just give me one example entry for a list best suited for you -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Just specify the djvu file name on IA, and the corresponding file name on Commons; e.g.

Pentagon-Papers-Part-IV-C-9a.djvu Pentagon-Papers-Part IV. C. 9. a.djvu

I can do the rest. Cheers, Hesperian 01:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Utilise Magnus's url2commons tool it does bulk files, especially able to do a series really well with its variables. Happy to do them if required. Re my "why replace them" statement, it seems that it was ambiguous. I was meaning why not just upload new versions, rather than replace them. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW this tools is always my first choice to upload, it goes direct and takes a {{book}} template, handles multiple volumes with $URL$ and $DESCRIPTOR$ variables. You can even have categories, etc. Air Magnus is my budget carrier of choice. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but if you've forgotten your password, you're stuck as it won't let you start over. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've gotta start [re]learning some of this stuff I suppose.... maybe I'll poke it if I have the time while I get that list together in a day or two. Thanks for the offers in the meantime - I just might have to take one of you up on it (... and again re: naming, if I upload these new, what hapens to the other files that got proofread inspite of having no text layer? Leave them under an already forked file naming scheme between them all by introducing a third variant? Please no offense intended here but you really should check your mouse, eyes & mouth for synchronization -- one of them is getting way out ahead of the others. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Reaching the index on some works

I was browsing around to see examples of completed works here on Wikisource, and I thought of a favorite of mine, Machiavelli's The Prince. Searching for it turned up a couple of English translations, and I noticed that this one translated by W. K. Marriott is incomplete. I wanted to see if it needed simple quick stuff like proofreading or whatever, and so I looked for a way to access the index, but there was no Source tab up at the top of the user interface. I couldn't find it by searching the Index namespace either.

Does this mean that that particular book doesn't have a scanned in file, or what? Kierkkadon (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been uploaded as a copy/paste from an unknown source directly into the mainspace. If you're interested in it there's a copy on Internet Archive that we can upload to Commons and then create the Index: page. We would replace the unsourced work with the new pages.

The best place to look for complete works is Category:Index Validated. Many of the works in Category:Index Proofread are complete and are waiting for a second pair of eyes. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks. Kierkkadon (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation that my contributions are helpful

I've recently added Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines to WikiSource and begun working on getting it proofread and such, but I would like to make sure that the work I'm doing so far is following the correct procedures and style for WikiSource. Would an experienced contributor mind just checking over some of the pages I have done, and make sure that the work I'm spending lots of time on isn't just going to be overwritten because I'm doing it wrong? Thanks. Kierkkadon (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

At a quick review looks fine to me, keep up the good work. Jeepday (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The proofreading is fine, the topic is very interesting to me as a machine mechanic, and the image is great. Two comments to help you along. We have {{running header}} or the redirected short name = {{rh}} template which greatly simplifies the header. I placed one example on this page. The second item is categorizing the commons image in a unique collection. I created a new category named commons:Category:Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines (book) which should store the book and all images from it. This category became the subcategory of three other existing categories: commons:Category:Machine tools, commons:Category:Machining tools, and commons:Category:Milling machines. It's perfectly normal to cross categorize. I hope this helps. — Ineuw talk 02:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh my god, that template makes everything so much easier, thanks. And thanks for the help with the images, too. —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 03:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I learned the hard way that if I seem to have a new issue, then someone else already solved it. Of course, it doesn't mean that one cannot use one's own solutions. :-) — Ineuw talk 04:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

1 or 2 Missing page(s) what to do? Continue on ?

After the page below there is an image page and a blank page ("No Text") then page 9. What to do? Should I continue with page 9 or should the image page and no text page have the 2 missing pages found and inserted? —Maury (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Page:The_history_of_yachting.djvu/32

Let me take a closer look at the source file & its origins... in the meantime please do not create any additional pages under that Index:

Back in a bit. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. —Maury (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well scan pages 7 & 8 (text content) are missing alright. Saddly, the PDF on IA which the DjVu was derived from is also missing these two pages. Without an alternative source file to pull and convert those two missing pages from, the best I can do is insert two blank place-holders in the interim and then request a bot to move all the existing pages accordingly.

This is classic example where completely filling out the pagelist first would have identified a problem prior to all those pages being created & now having a need for them to be moved afterwards. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I will try to obtain a hardcopy of this from an interlibrary loan because the material is fascinating. I never thought of the huge ships in 1600s-1800s, or before, as "yachting". It's educational and the ships are grand. Would you please go ahead with what you know needs to be done to remedy the missing pages (insert two blank pages)? I too regret the missing pages and deeply so. I really wanted to work on this book. Thank you for being here and assisting. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I will go ahead with the blank place-holder insertions & bulk move requests. Once that is completed, the eventual content (when located & converted) becomes an easy swap rather than starting this process from scratch at that point instead. Until that time, Proofreading can continue as usual. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As an FYI, there is a second copy from the library of congress here on IA that has pages 7 and 8 but lacks the illustration, but has pages 7 and 8. It is listed as copy 2 and has the same copyright info, LCCN, so I think it might count as the same "version". MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks & indeed, it is the same 1904 copyrighted edition. While it does have the mssing scan pages nos. 7 & 8, it is also 522 pages long while the one Indexed here on en.WS is 400 pages long -- one is probably a first attempt with a bunch of duplicates and the other the resulting attempt to edit the first. Anyway, I'll swap the 2 missing pages in for the place-holders; the BOT request is still pending regardless.

ONCE AGAIN - issues like this are best avoided and/or identified by completely filling out the pagelist accurately BEFORE the creation of ANY pages in the Page: namespace. For example, without the full adjustment of pagelist in place, we still don't know for sure if there are any other missing pages in this work. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Hesperian 08:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Lesson Learned? -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

<sigh> yes. Hesperian 01:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────┘
Of course a simple check of the List of Illustrations to the existing page progression reveals both missing images and out of order images. The two source files are NOT as originally published. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

... attempting fresh recovery from HathiTrust instead. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The correct source that mirrors the book as first published has caption sheets for all full page images - that is why it is 520 pages "total". Good Luck trying to straighten out Hesperian's oversight. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hesperian's oversight has been removed. Hesperian 04:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Good heavens, George. What a mess. Is the book correct so that it can be worked on now? Whether it 'tis or 'tisn't, I thank you and the others for trying to square it away. If it is not workable, HathiTrust has a "full book download option" with the proper pages. I downloaded it last night and started removing the watermarks from it. I didn't place the book here on WS, I requested that from a friend and apparently neither he nor I knew about setting up a "pagelist" first. I know I didn't know about that pagelist process and indeed it is important as I have seen here for my first time. I had never encountered this situation until now. Thank you for your hard work and administrative dedication on this book.—Maury (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure if the original page progression as scanned makes the most sense for us. Understand that every full-page image in the book as published has 4 pages associated with it...

1. reverse image caption
2. image caption
3. image itself
4. blank opposite the image

The only other thing I can do is re-arrange and trim 2 of those pages so in final transclusion the caption would follow the image -- i.e. 2 and 4 above would be swapped and result in...

1. reverse image caption
2. blank opposite the image
3. image itself
4. image caption

... then I would delete 1 & 2. Other than that, the current file is the way the original book is. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

* George, I thank you once again for your hard work and dedication and I regret that you went through this. This is not a book we're dealing with. It is a puzzle akin to scrambled eggs with too many pages in the wrong place, pages that need not exist, and as you show, and I am well aware of:

1. reverse image caption
2. image caption
3. image itself
4. blank opposite the image

---

---

1. There should be no reverse caption
2. the image caption should be below the image
3. note the excessive space of a small image, a faint border, and then the larger page

...and then there are these absurdities and other absurdities worse than this....

This so-called "book" has too many "filler pages" with nothing of value other than to make the book look thicker. It is worse than any "mess" it is an abomination - an abhorrence. If done right this would be an excellent book but such is not the case. This maze of pretzel-like text and images is as bad as a twisted U shape of a sniper's barrel. This entire mess should be removed, totally removed, completely destroyed because it will never be done, never be repaired nor completed by anyone as it should be on Wikisource -- not by me and not by anyone else. It will just sit where it is until doomsday when it finally and is totally destroyed. It is a "bloody" shame that it is as it is but it is. —Maury (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for that. I got hyper over that book situation.—Maury (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The Statutes at Large (Ruffhead)

I've noted some 'unusal' page numbering in the scans, Can someone add checking that in Vol2 for example this actually an 18th century printing error, rather than me needing to call in a shrink? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Bottom-aligned image

I'm working on page 30 of Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines. This particular page was printed with an in-line image, aligned to the bottom of the text and to the right. In the printed version, text flows around it and then the last line of text lines up with the bottom of the image and caption. Is it WikiSource policy to make sure that this happens in our version as well, and if so, how do I do it? —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 19:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I should note that I expect this to be effectively impossible without disabling one of the best features of Wiki software: automatic text wrapping to fit browser width. I just thought I'd ask in case it actually was possible. —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 20:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at template {{img float}} for making the text flow around a right-aligned (or left) image. Don't worry about making it line up at the bottom at any particular point because of the browser width issue you mention. I usually put them in at the beginning of paragraphs in the Page: namespace so that I can find the template again more easily if I have to adjust it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Mediaevalleicest00billrich_n17.png

This was a downsample from the Djvu scans to a 2bpp PNG, Ideally though this should be SVG as it's a line art map. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Procedural (Image extract): Index:Mediaevalleicest00billrich.djvu

It would be appreciated if someone could extract the images for this from a suitable hi-quality scan.

I am wondering though if the plans should be candidates for vector conversion. :} Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Long s

Is it possible to add " ſ " to the special characters box?

I had been using the s template, but being able to place the appropriate character directly would be appreciated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

From memory it was decided that this would be done as a template so that readers could chose how it would be displayed to them (s or s). If we enter it directly then that option is lost. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Beeswaxcandle, although as I recall the function did not work properly and was disabled. However, someday someone will make it work and on that day the template will be really useful to have. At the moment, it just puts a modern lewtter S in place in the main namespace. Technically, a bot could find and replace all long-s characters at that time but its better to have everything in place as much as possible. However, would you like {{ls}} added to the box instead? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes Please :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added it to the "Ligatures and Old English" line. I know it isn't either but that was the closest match without starting a new line. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hebrew character sizing

I am working on this project which has a lot of large Hebrew characters as can be seen in this link. Currently, I am enclosing the {{he}} in a font template. I was wondering if someone used a simpler solution than this? — Ineuw talk 08:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S: As an afterthought, I've looked at the "he" template code and I think that something is incorrect, because there is a 125% font size parameter. Can someone enlighten me? Thanks. — Ineuw talk 08:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Couple issues with Departmental Ditties, etc.

Issue #1: I copied the formatting that Theornamentalist had done with The Five Nations, but this page still needs some tweaking/reworking to fit the particular text (color, etc.). If anyone can work the page, it would be appreciated!

Issue #2: For some reason, 'next' and 'previous' are not showing up for the first and second poems respectively in the Main. I don't know if it is a glitch in transclusion or how I have formatted things in the Index.

The title was not linked in the Index: page, so header=1 did not know where to start from.--Mpaa (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Aah, thank you. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Page with many images and non-regular captions

This page: Page:Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines.pdf/97 of Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines has a lot of images on it, arranged in an irregular manner with captions both below, and to the sides. I did the best I could using the built in Wikitable formatting, but did I do it right? Is there some more efficient or desirable way of formatting this? —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 17:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks great. You may find it easier in the future if you consider creating separate table for each row.— Ineuw talk 08:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Transclusion & TOC setup

If the following transclusion formatting is used

<pages index="Rudyard Kipling's verse - Inclusive Edition 1885-1918.djvu" from=467 to=469 fromsection="s2" tosection="s1" header=1 />

for this text, which presents the TOC in this way (note alpha vs. page order), the order of poems when Mainspace browsing will likewise render alphabetically vice in page order. Is this okay? or should some other transclusion formatting be used?

I have already proofread and transcluded "Bobs", which can be used as a guinea pig. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the first quotes annoy header=1 (fromsection="s2" tosection="s1"). If you try fromsection=s2 tosection="s1", it works. Do not exactly why though. Maybe someone else can chip in.--Mpaa (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Now it looks OK even with quotes. I must have dreamt. --Mpaa (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Well then I dreamt it too, 'cause after you posted, I tried what you were talking about, and I believe I saw what you saw. Still, my other question about whether WS wants the poems to be "read" alphabetically or in page number order (see TOC)? Does/should it matter? Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The previous and next fields in the header template should be in the book order because this replicates the editorial intentions. The TOC is just making it easier to find individual poems. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks both, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Need help with file transfer

Hi all,

I'm unable to over-write...

• commons:File:A_New_Survey_of_the_West_Indies_or_The_English_American_his_Travel_by_Sea_and_Land.pdf

with...

• http://ia701203.us.archive.org/21/items/newsurveyofwesti01gage/newsurveyofwesti01gage.pdf

found under...

• http://archive.org/details/newsurveyofwesti01gage

... because my connection keeps timing out (88 Mb file). Can somebody with the time and the spare bandwidth give replacing this text-layer lacking problem file a shot? TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Moondyne (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Strangeness. The Commons page shows my 88mb upload worked but I cant seem to download that to confirm. I wonder if its a caching issue? Moondyne (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Seeing the same thing here. I went to go create a few pages and the text-layer is indeed getting dumped from the new upload (and it looks like the existing Page:s will need an adjustment of -3 positions) but I can't verify any of that since the thumbnails aren't coming thru.

• http://ia701203.us.archive.org/21/items/newsurveyofwesti01gage/newsurveyofwesti01gage.djvu

What about if we replace the PDF by adding the DjVu instead? -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I did wonder about that. Commons:File:A New Survey of the West Indies or The English American his Travel by Sea and Land.djvu looks better behaved. Moondyne (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the DjVu route is superior. I'll save what is worth saving and delete the rest. Thanks for all your help. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Book of Common Prayer

There are three versions of the BCP on WS, none complete and two with substantial content. The one at Book of Common Prayer is apparently copied from this website. According to this page from that site, a 1987 Cambridge edition was used as a "standard text." I think Book of Common Prayer should be moved to Book of Common Prayer (1987) and Book of Common Prayer be made into a disambiguation page, but there are a whole bunch of subpages so I didn't want to do the move myself. --Jfhutson (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this should be moved and I have done so. This raises another problem, however. A 1987 text, using 1964-8 modifications, probably isn't in the public domain. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

What a mess. I believe, though I do not have it in front of me, that the 1987 work on which the website is based from which this page was copied is substantially the 1662 BCP with modernized spelling. At Cambridge's website, the copyright claim being made is the perpetual copyright for the 1662 work. I don't think it has changed enough since then for a new copyright claim to be made, but I'm no expert. --Jfhutson (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion here about the copyright status. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Help with adding in a book

I need help with this book: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:An_introduction_to_the_early_history_of_Christian_doctrine_to_the_time_of_the_Council_of_Chalcedon.pdf

The pages won't show up (images are blank).

If someone could me ASAP, that would be great!

- Lucyrocks=) (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be similar problem to 2 sections above. Suggest you use the djvu at [4]] instead. Moondyne (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I would, but I can't get it to work since my computer doesn't open or download DJVU files. Could you upload for me?

Doen. File:An introduction to the early history of Christian doctrine to the time of the Council of Chalcedon.djvu Moondyne (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Side-by-side table needed

May I impose on someone to format this page for me? It continues on to the next page. I can copy the handiwork for the poem that follows. Thanks ahead of time, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Done Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and also for the Greek. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Text and images rotated 90°

On this page of Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines, the image and text are both rotated 90°. Would it be best to reorient them for Wikisource (by rotating the image and just typing in the text) or just using the raw image of that page? —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 19:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to rotate images and type in the text myself. It makes the text searchable (and linkable where needed) and readers on fixed screens won't have to turn their heads sideways. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Does this work? —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 21:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. My only suggestion would be to restrict the width of the image as it's too wide for mobile text-readers. As a rule of thumb, I usually use 350px or 400px for vertical full page images and no more than 500px for horizontal images like this. When it's being read on-wiki the image can always be clicked on to see the full-sized version. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, at Commons, order their rotation using RotateBot. There is a template available to get this done. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

If we use header=1 transclusion, and there is a Wikipedia article associated with a piece, how would/can we place that information in the Notes section of the Mainspace page? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe {{Plain sister}} before <pages>? Drawback is that the link will appear above the header box.--Mpaa (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(e.c. with Adam below) Right. I tried that, and it's an eyesore. I'm not too far into the work that I can't change the header parameters (is that the right terminology?) over to the traditional ones... The other option would be to bug Tpt about the template again, but that would be the second time I've done so, and I don't think the first issue was figured out yet (references appearing below the blue navigation panel at the bottom of Mainspace pages as opposed to directly following the text). How important is that link to the WP article? Can/should I be lazy and continue on as-is? Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That's controlled by MediaWiki:Proofreadpage header template. I added the wikipedia sister link to it a while ago but I'm not sure how to call it. I based my additions on a pre-existing sister link (commonscat was already there) but no luck. It might need to be part of the Index page in some fashion to be pulled through. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Re:"It might need to be part of the Index page in some fashion to be pulled through": Maybe some kind of 'anchoring' on the TOC page corresponding with a poem title? Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure how it would work. At one point, after reading some related documents, I was under the impression that parameters could be entered through the <pages> tag. eg. <pages index="Foo.djvu" header=1 wikipedia="Danny Deever" from=x to=y />. Now I think the extension software assumes a section on the Index page like the title, author, year etc. This might be a job for Tpt, or anyone else who works with the extension (if there is anyone else). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll phrase a question to Tpt soon. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Ruffhead_-_The_Statutes_at_Large,_1763.djvu

The index for this needs updating I was able to patch the file. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're after here. If it's just a matter of adjusting the pagelist on the Index page, go for it. It's something else can you please give a bit more detail? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's moving all contributions after page 40 up by 2 pages, I can't do this because it requires a mass page move,

which I agreed not to do currently. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. Log a request on WS:Bot requests (use one of George's as a model) and someone will look after it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of the text completed, can this work be pushed into the mainspace?

I've completed the proofreading for almost all the textual pages of Index:Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines.djvu. The remaining unproofread pages are primarily composed of images with short descriptions and then a universe full of dense tables. Once I finish the non-table pages (or somebody else does), can the work be pushed to the mainspace? I'm eager to link a Wikipedia article to it, and the way I plan to work them the tables won't be searchable anyway. —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 17:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it can go to the mainspace. In fact, the preliminary pages and chapters 1 to 7 can happen now. Do you want some help with this, or do you want to have a go yourself first? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to give it a try myself, if nobody minds. —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 20:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

From this Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines it looks like you have it under control. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Weird dotted box showing up in the middle of the page, cannot find a cause

So on this page: Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines/Chapter 4, midway down (listed as being transcluded from page 63, in fact) the text is set apart in this box with a dashed border, and it changes font to the same as that used in the editting window. I can't figure out why, either at the beginning of Page 63 or the end of Page 62. —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 20:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There will be a stray space or two at the end of page 62. You just need to remove them. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

EC. Removed. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah. For some reason I thought I checked that. No matter. Thanks! —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 21:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Other discussions

Problematic

I have noticed a fair number of users validating a page as ’Problematic’ when the only issues is a missing image and the appropriate template is used. As the template {{Missing image}} puts the page in Category:Pages with missing images or Category:Texts with missing images, this does not seem to me to be a problem. I would suggest that a missing image is not a "problem" worthy of the validating a page as problematic. Two key rationals being.

1. In the page name space, when the page is Transclusioned (Transclusion, sp?) to the main space, the image is only a click away for the reader.
2. The next validation from ’Problematic’ is ’Proofread’, so ’validated’ requires yet another editor to review the page, for no text based rational.

Per Help:Beginner's_guide_to_proofreading#Problematic_pages "Commons problems include pages with illustrations (if no image file is available), " in the case of scans the image is available, it just needs to be cleaned up, and placed in the work. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A practical use case: can this page be marked as proofread then Page:Biographies_of_Scientific_Men.djvu/6143? (changed as img is now uploaded)--Mpaa (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, yes. The text is correct. You could probably have debate about {{Missing image}} instead of {{raw image}}, but that aside, everything else is image housekeeping. We have the image, there are things that could be done (without end) to make it better. Anyone with the skills and desires can easily find all the similar images (12 of them) in the book at Category:Pages with raw images. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday)

In my own works I use Problematic to indicate which pages I need to come back to to do the images. This is because my way of working is to get the text all in place first and then return and do the full-page images. Where the images are needed inline to the text (such as Index:Mr. Punch's Book of Sports.djvu) {{raw image}} can't be used and Problematic again acts as a flag to PotM contributors that the image needs adding in before the page is Proofread. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That is how I handle it, and to me the only other means that I would find acceptable would be yet another colour that indicated proofread but image missing. AND I don't really want to go there. I am comfortable that the purple is a significant indicator. Similarly pages with words needing translation, or an illegible word get the same treatment, even when the remainder of the page has been proofread. About the only exception is where [q.v] links have not been added, and I am comfortable with those being marked as proofread, but not as validated. Quirky, eh? — billinghurst sDrewth 03:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, Proofread should be reserved for pages that are finished; and Validated for finished pages that have been checked. Pages with missing or raw images are not finished, so they should be tagged Problematic.

From a social engineering point of view, I believe that fixing missing images is to many of us an unrewarding task, but that in general we are highly motivated to turn our index pagelists to yellow and ultimately green. I suspect that often we only fix those missing images out of a desire to remove unsightly blue stains from our pagelists. If we got into the habit of promoting pages with missing images, that inducement would be removed, and I think many fewer missing images would ever be fixed.

Hesperian 02:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

{{Italic block}} template

Would it be a pain/is it possible to get italic block s/e templates created? Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hope this'll do: {{Italic block/s}}, {{Italic block/e}}. Prosody (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Worked, thanks! I wasn't sure if, when combined with another template like {{block center}}, it needed to precede the bc template or go after it (I'm not explaining myself very well)... but it doesn't seem to matter. Is there "best practice" however? Feel free to edit the two affected pages as necessary. Thanks for adding the templates. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The order shouldn't matter in almost any plausible situation. It shouldn't affect anything, but it's still good form to properly nest the starting and ending templates e.g. ABC [text] CBA rather than ABC [text] BAC, which you're already doing correctly in the linked page. Prosody (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Umm, why? You can just have <i></i> pairs for these situations where you need a bigger wrap or need to split it over a page break. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Would have worked for me, had I not been a template-dependent User by habit; not to mention codus ignoramus :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Enhanced editing toolbar

Do any of our experienced users use the beta feature "enhanced editing toolbar"? I would like it to be removed from the options to select as it causes far more problems than it's worth. Custom buttons don't work with it; and it often doesn't behave in expected ways in the Proofreading extension. I have been recommending users who are having problems to turn it off and the problems have gone away. Is anyone successfully using it? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been using it since I think the Vector rollout without problems. It's possible to add custom buttons, it just involves different code. If you'd like I can try to convert any specific buttons. Prosody (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If there are specific problems it could be helpful to check if there are already bug reports about them: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?component=WikiEditor&resolution=--- --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andre, it is just a beast to customise. At enWS we have numbers of specific code often templated or tags, that we can add, some related to a specific set of large works, so we can have something like <section begin="blah" />text<section end="blah" /> (for which I have buttons in the old toolbar via Special:mypage/common.js (obviously mine though), and we have copyable code/examples at Wikisource:Tools and scripts/More editing buttons.

Krinkle pointed me to mw:Extension:WikiEditor/Toolbar customization which may be right, but for those of us less js competent, it isn't necessarily helpful. After I whined, he created m:User:Krinkle/Scripts/InsertWikiEditorButton which he seems to have refined since I last looked. We did have some early specific early problems with the toolbar that Brion had to do some work to add things like header/footer toggle due to some of the coding of Proofread Page]]. In the end, I think that many of us gave up and just kept our old toolbar, it suited in conjunction with tweaks to mediawiki:edittools, and the new toolbar was just "meh!" Of course, we could all just be dinosaurs.

Can I also say that I believe that it is really should no longer be labelled beta feature as Brion and all have stated that it is now the toolbar and we aren't going back. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

* WikiMedia promoted via YouTube *

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=j9-CovbP-7U&feature=endscreen

I love the music and graphics presented at the beginning leading into promoting the wiki site.—Maury (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status of Vatican works

What is the status of copyright for Vatican works? In particular Second Vatican Council Documents by Paul VI listed under 1965 works. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving to WS:CV as that are where the experts inhabit. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Proofread Texts of the Month awards -- make them unique -- match the books

Why can we not use better/prettier images for each proofread award of the month? For example, Past Collaborations shows very nice and varied images as opposed to the same old star, or any modification of it thereof. The awards images should look good on people's pages. The same old stars, or any modification thereof, does not do this. It is more attractive including for people looking in at them. There are some such as the tree rings, a face, etc. but I think the award should always be pleasing and match the story itself. —Maury (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Scope of Wikisource, Bibliographies, ISBN

Hi,

If I can ask a few basic questions...

1. Does Wikisource allow ANY published work (if copyright is not an issue)? What about digitally created works?
2. Might Wikisource incorporate templates to collect bibliographic information to build up a comprehensive bibliography (unlike Wikipedia which is limited to notable works), expanding to reference even still copyrighted works?
3. Is there a way to find books by ISBN number on Wikisource (unlike Special:BookSources)
4. Also, how about allowing adding of verifiable info per any work's edition, e.g., reporting suspected errata, etc., so there could be a centralized place for this info.

Thanks! Brettz9 (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I placed a welcome template on your talk page it will lead you to some of the answers. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And for the ones that doesn't: we use {{authority control}} for external identifiers along with metadata associated with facsimiles in the Index namespace, and other metadata in the main and Author namespaces and in the main talk page of pre-ProofreadPage works. In the flying car future everything will have its facsimile and authority controls and comprehensive metadata will be pulled from that, but right now it's a little bit of a mess. Mass bibliography data and documenting variants in editions are probably outside our scope. Prosody (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Wikisource:What Wikisource includes plus the other links that Jeepday gave above. In short published public domain works (no notability), and historic documents (notability attached). Appropriately creative commons licensed too.
2. Sure, we have been attempting to do so in the Index: namespace, and are migrating that way, though we feel that the Wikidata project is probably the best chance we have of standardised data about books, plus what Prosody has talked about above.
3. To my understanding an ISBN is by published edition, so each new edition gets a new ISBN. As our books pre-date ISBN by a long way, I doubt any (the vast majority) have ISBN. We have some LoC, and other identifiers appearing, though this is more recent move.
4. Annotations by contributors is problematic in how we do that and retain the original work as published. A recent hot issue for us (again) and one that needs to be readdressed. That said, every work has a talk page, and a notes section. Annotations on a talk page are completely legitimate, and the use of the parameter edition= yes in {{header}} will point users to talk pages. Part of an issue, is what is "verifiable" and whether such an annotation should be in a work. For instance, part of a research approach is to reference a work as is, and comment about it in the article/essay, not to go back and change the reference work from which the incorrect fact is drawn. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance of the Month

Why did User:Erasmo Barresi move his YouTube project to the Maintenance of the Month queue without either suggesting it or discussing it, and to the front of the line at that? Or if he didn't, why did User:AdamBMorgan think he did? ResScholar (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

For the latter, this edit. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Better Question, why does the maintenance of the month this month, not work to restore the mess of unapproved deletions of Wikipedia excerpts from January 2013? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• Alternative Question, in what way is the creation of a video maintenance? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The creation of a video is not properly maintenance, but it falls into the "editor recruitment" field. We have covered this when we reformed the main page and the newsletter. They are all things to increase participation to Wikisource. The use of a certain word must not tie down our possibilities to do something towards Wikisource.

We have different opinions about Wikipedia excerpts in author pages. In such cases the best thing to do is—in my opinion—remaining within the ultimate goal of Wikisource. The briefness and "authorshiplessness" of the bio should make any attribution to Wikipedia unnecessary.

I moved that YouTube project to the Maintenance of the Month because I wanted to involve as many people as possible. Moreover, some proposals I've opened have had few or no responses, even after a lot of days (see above 1&2), for several reasons. There is no problem about it—after some time one can assume tacit consent—, but sometimes there is not enough time to start a thread and wait for responses. Nothing was set for February, so I chose this one that was already started.

I obviously dislike disagreement, so I'm sorry if I caused some. :-( Erasmo Barresi (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not as obvious to me that you dislike disagreement, as you even resort to falsehoods in your arguments to perpetuate it. I can't help but notice that what you actually did was produce a great deal of agreement—that there was a problem with your maneuver. I am reverting your contrivance to put you and Maury's private project on the front page—which, in the field of project selection on Wikisource, is as rare as a block. ResScholar (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment In reply about erronous and offensive statements about me and in support of a good fellow editor (Erasmo):

ResidentScholar, are there not rules for these sorts of things whereby a person [Erasmo]is (1) is supposed have the "benefit of the doubt"? (2) to "be bold"? (3) Are there not rules that state something to the effect of no personal attacks? (4) I will tell you now that there was no "contrivance to put you and Maury's private project on the front page or if there was I never knew of any "contrivance." I think Erasmo did exactly as he states. I would not accuse, or hint, or insinuate in any form about him of being a liar. I do not believe for a moment that he is. What he is though is a hard worker on Wikisource and has been since he joined WS. Erasmo is an Italian struggling through a school to learn higher English and who did what he thought was good for Wikisource. He tried to be bold without knowing all of the rules. Too, the "script" to better Wikisource with a professional video did not come from me other than in statements to better the script for a professional video. It was I who made a statement here in the open to the effect that I prefer not to answer on Erasmo's sandbox page. He followed that comment, I believe, and thus he posted here in the open with hopes as he himself has stated. It gained some speed. It gained some ideas and all of this was, to my knowledge, preceded by AdamBMorgan's excellent video and the comments made by me and others here on that and other videos. Now, regarding my personal video on that wonderful book about all kinds of "Cycles" -- it is strictly my personal work complete with a Disclaimer although not within the video but rather in a comment area below the video. It is a hope of mine that you have not accused a good man to a point that WS has lost an excellent editor who really cares about improving Wikisource. Have you ever conversed about the retention of WS editors or wonder why they drift away? Have you ever wondered why that could happen and do you even really care? Outsiders who read here may think never to edit on WS because of such antics and accusations. Therefore not only are editors leaving but there are not enough editors joining. Add the two ideas together -- editors leave and potential editors do not join. That has doubled, or more than doubled losses for en.Wikisource. On the highly visible subject line you made two obvious statements. They are: Reverted maintenance of the month-private project presented under false pretenses) and removed private project presented under false pretences). You could have simply had your statements on users pages but then there would have been no audience. I found the following:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2008-04

"Please participate in the discussion, but refrain for caricatures and personal attacks."

—Maury (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

•  Comment Specifics aside.... I wish I could at least support one position or the other, but in all fairness to both positions - I can't get past the most basic of facts first.

  This page too fuckin' long (again) to actually propose, debate and resolve all but the most simple of proposals without it getting lost in the weeds first for some folks so Erasamo has a point (though unsupported) about consent, scheduling and so on while ResidentScholar also has a point about shit getting passed or implemented without the normal due diligence running it's course beforehand, again, thanks to the amount of overgrowth taking place here moreso than anything deceptive or similar taking place.

  p.s. - I'm just as much to blame for this as anyone else might be; question is what are going to do about it? Tear each other down or work together to move things forward? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• The Question of endorsement comes to mind. If the project is presented as a Wikisource-endorsed venture (by the mere fact that it is being developed on WS pages), then more debate/input/involvement would seem to be needed. Or, the project can be developed privately, as Mr. Morris has done for his "Cycle" video; but that would call for some sort of (what do you call it?) written aside in the text of the video that the video is a private project and not endorsed by WS or WM, etc... Mr. Morris & Mr. Barresi and anyone else interested are always free to brainstorm outside of this forum if the latter method is chosen. Seems that what needs to be agreed upon at this point is whether it will be a WS-endorsed project or a private one. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Londonjackbooks, my video shows no endorsement of anyone, any company, nobody but myself in the form of a clear disclaimer. Although the disclaimer is not in my video it is in the comments section beneath the video and there are two videos as my personal projects. If I do more I will insert the disclaimer inside as well. Now, in reference to your comments about "brainstorming outside of this forum", you should recall your own as well as my "brainstorming" (a lot of so-called "brainstorming") including your comments about a lady singing or reading Coats and creating a voice file for your children. That is hardly on-topic of what Erasmo had submitted to better Wikisource using his "script". You also wrote more on Coates and made several statements. A case of "The Pot.."

Re: "The Pot"... I'm not calling anybody anything. Read into my statement above how you will. I will be happy to clarify on my Talk page if you feel it necessary. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Did anyone state that you are calling anyone anything with the "The Pot..."? ["Le Pot de fleurs" ?] Are you erroneously "reading into my statement" with anything, anyone, on any matter? You have already "read into my [own] statement/s". I have no interest at all in making you "happy" in any form (that is your spouse's duty in all forms)on your talk page because I do not feel it is my duty nor a necessity. I do not enjoy being bored. —Maury (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Point-by-point:

1. "Endorsement": I was referring to adding a disclaimer (the word I was looking for, thanks) within the context of the proposed WS video—not the "Cycle" video (I only used the Cycle video as an example of a private project; that is all)... which I thought clever, actually.
2. "brainstroming outside of this forum": There was no issue (with me) about the 'brainstorming' that took place here on WS with regard to the proposed video. My statement about Users being "free to brainstorm outside of this forum" was immediately followed by "if the latter method [private project] is chosen" (context again). My "hardly on-topic" comments/statements about Coates were merely a tangent thought about your comment on one's "ability, or lack thereof, of public speaking". Apologies if I strayed from your talking points—I am boring that way (my poor poor husband to have to live with me!).
3. "The Pot...": I am only too eager to hear how you would have completed that sentence (or how a flower pot would have anything to do with the situation). But it is, of course, not your "duty nor a necessity" to answer.
4. Methinks you are... (fill in the blank): Unfinished sentences often lead to assumptions. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not appreciate anyone making assumptions about me or accusing me of something. Neither do I like someone involved in something side-stepping later in a conversation who is not willing to admit that they themselves are, what they state, or indicate in some way, of others. Be fully truthful and responsible for what you yourself do from this point forward and already have done earlier.

'Nuff said only said in self-defense because I was dragged into this starting with my 1st statements of defense above and continued to here below. —Maury (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

---

ResidentScholar restored the January task and that's fine. I'm going to further develop the video privately—feel free to e-mail me if you'd like to be involved.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Lua scripting implementation (+ templates conversion/rewrite)

Hi guys, I am coordinating MediaWiki's Scribunto extension installations on various community wikis to enable Lua scripting language for templates. If there are some of you interested in learning Lua and converting your local templates to it, please drop me a note on my talk page (because I am not watching this page) so that we can arrange Scribunto installation for you. You can also check demo templates on test2.wikipedia.org. Thank you! --Kozuch (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I encourage any who are template creators to heartily consider Kozuch's offer. This is a migration process that will be taking place, and probably an opportunity for more handholding and kid gloves than will occur at a later time. In short it is meant to be offering more scaling of the limited mw:Help:Magic words and mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions — billinghurst sDrewth 10:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

billinghurst, thanks for adding the important context! It should have been in my original message, but my resources are limited... :-) I would like to ask everybody interested to really not reply here but on my talk page as I am not able to watch this discussion page. Thanks! --Kozuch (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Categories

I am about to create a new category Category:Waterloo Campaign it will contain a series of letter, decelerations treaties and conventions. The first one of which is nearly ready is the Convention of St. Cloud (the surrender of Paris), 3rd July 1815. I propose to place this category into another one called Category:Hundred Days for which there is already the documents Declaration at the Congress of Vienna and Treaty of Vienna (Seventh Coalition). Into which category/ies should I place the Hundred Days? -- PBS (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Waterloo campaign would be better. We much prefer to present documents into formatted portal pages. It provides context, order, formatting, etc. and allows wiki links for missing documents. Not sure about portals, have a look at {{portal header}} — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Monkey sees monkey does. I'll put the convention in place and perhaps you would be kind enough to add what you think is appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

As an example, Portal:Hundred Days starting with:

{{portal header
 | title     = Hundred Days
 | class     = D
 | subclass1 = -
 | parent    = Napoleonic Wars<!-- Optional, only if you intend to have a Portal:Napoleonic Wars; it can be added later. -->
 | shortcut  = 
 | wikipedia = Hundred Days
 | notes     = 
}}

Subclass D is General History, which seems the best fit. There is an argument for Subclass DC, History of France, if you prefer. Just list the works in appropriate sections after that. Portals aside, I think's worth adding at least Category:Napoleonic Wars to each work and the portal.

Supreme Court rules Congress can re-copyright public domain works

I think everyone here should know about this, the link can be found at Supreme Court rules Congress can re-copyright public domain works | Ars Technica --kathleen wright5 (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2012-02#Golan_v._Holder -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Walsall Labour Party is Open Licensed

In response to my blog post Politician pin ups – open-licensed pictures, please the Walsall (England) Labour Party have open-licensed their website, including text content. Pigsonthewing (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Tumblr update

The experiment with a Wikisource Tumblr continues. At the moment, it is limited to announcing PotM and featured texts. I have recently (that is, a few days ago) included the Wikisource:News headlines as part of the cycle. Another recent event is that the blog is now included as part of Planet Wikimedia, a blog aggregator that brings together posts from many assorted Wikimedia-related blogs. This might get more attention from other Wikimedians. We currently have two followers and have had three "likes" to date (two of which were for the announcement of the PotM for The Cycle Industry).

Nice job, can we at the end of the end month(ish) retrospectively note the completed texts from {{new texts}} from the month? Or we could note them when we transfer them to their archive at Wikisource:Works

Currently I am the only person with control over this Tumblr. Some organisation goes on via WikiProject Social media. I missed some things over the last two months as I was having various internet connectivity problems. There may be a problem in that everything we do runs on a monthly cycle, so it all updates on the same day. I am currently postponing the featured text announcement a little to (marginally) spread things out. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Spreading things out sound good, so what else an be considered for a rough schedule through the month. It may be worth looking to get some sort of text from the active projects at one a month, at least to spike some interest. DNB and PSM are always good candidates. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Good Job Adam :) JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Password

Per this discussion "both Stewards and CheckUsers have wikis available where passwords can be stored for future recall as needed". I propose we make use of this solution, unless a better idea is offered. The best time for this type of housekeeping is at the beginning, else it gets put off until to late. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and I have accounts at both. If you want me to create a page for it, I would recommend CUs. Another alternative is that you email the detail to [email protected], and it will be stored in the OTRS system. All of these have other eyes staring at them, so none of it is perfect security. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In this case, Tumblr doesn't work that way. In order for the tumbleblog to, potentially, accommodate multiple people it is a "secondary blog" (personal blogs are "primary blogs"). The password protection is for the user account and not for any individual blog (the guidance mentions password protection for secondary blogs but this seems to refer to read-access rather than write-access). Anyway, secondary blogs have members and admins. Members can post and edit/delete their own posts; admins can delete anyone's posts, invite new members and remove them. Admins can promote members to admin status but once they have that status they can't be demoted or removed.(Tumblr FAQ).

It would help to have other people posting (if nothing else, just to cover for the semi-annual periods when I randomly lose all access to the internet). This is easy from the Tumblr side of things but the process for arranging this is on the Wikisource side is a little vague. Any such person will need a Tumblr account and I don't think they need to set up a primary blog if they don't want one. Presumably, some Wikisource community approval will be required. There is a voting section on WikiProject Social media but it doesn't get enough attention at the moment to fulfil it's own requirements. Member status should probably be easier to acquire than admin status but this is yet to be determined. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well that certainly complicates my proposal. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

After thinking about this some more, I/we could create a new Tumblr account just for the purpose of recording the log in details somewhere. That way, if I should fall in front of a bus (or whatever), it can be revived, repaired or reclaimed using that account. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I looked around at Meta to see if there was anything about this, nothing jumped out at me. Presumably as intended this tumblr is a community asset. In that case it would really belong to the foundation, but there is nothing (glaringly obvious) dictating the management of such at meta. We know there are multiple similar social network accounts, maybe we should look to the foundation for direction? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Best resource I could find http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Social_media - JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Download as

While editing and validating today in several areas I also noticed something I am only partly familiar with. I was working on the present version of Vanity Fair and paused for a break. I saw the following on the sidebar:

Download/print
Create a book
Download as PDF
Download as EPUB
Download as EPUB
Printable version

I know how to create a book via Wikisource and I understand the PDF and EPUB options. My question is, Why are there two "Download as EPUB" options? Is it because the book is not completed? —Maury (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There are two "Download as EPUB" options because you have a scripted one in your common.js and you have the gadget turned on. I only know this, because it happens to me. They both do the same thing (access the WSexport tool), so you can choose to leave them both there (my lazy option) or turn one or the other off. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Beeswaxcandle. I too will follow that lazy option but only because I feel that my changing any of it might mess something up. —Maury (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have done it for you. If you are still seeing double, please Ctrl-F5 to refresh your cache of you r common.js file. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

New Wikisource relationship with Commons, Wikidata and Wikipedia

There is a grant application at Meta that has the potential to significantly impact crosswiki interactions. There is brief mention of it above, the proposal has improved greatly since that time. I would encourage you to take a look at the proposal, if you have not looked recently. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Broken configuration for template subpages

I have found that WMF has somehow broken the configuration of the Template: ns, not subpages. This means that the /doc componentry is broken, and doesn't work properly when you edit it, and especially when you have magic words as part of the coding. In short {{Author/doc}} and the template sandboxes and testcases are hosed until they fix it. Bugzilla:44638 and hopefully it will be done in the next couple of hours. In short, don't play with them, they are not broken themselves, it is the system. Fortunately it doesn't effect anything at the mainspace level, as these pages are not transcluded through— billinghurst sDrewth 12:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The template subpages issue has been resolved, however, we do still have some changed configuration that may or may not be problematic. Index and Page namespaces now have subpages, the implication of this is that any time that there is a forwardslash "/" in a name, then it will not be treated as a character, instead it will be treat it as a subpage. ThomasV in his initial coding was adamant that there should not be, however, I have no idea of the consequences. There are some benefits, it means that we can move subpages collectively, and make better use of magic words. For index: ns it is inconsequential. I am hoping that Tpt can guide us here. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

About page and index namespaces, I think this won't break the code of the extension (but I'm not sure) so it doesn't really matter. But, in these two namepaces, subpages aren't useful because pages are done to be positioned & created linked to match their associated scan-page within a source file. So, I think that we might remove this change but, if there is no bugs, it's not very important. Tpt (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There should be no consequences to having subpages available as long as the extension keeps creating page titles where the forward-slash remains defined just as any other simple allowed character currently is. If at somepoint the forward-slash reverts to its normal operation (i.e. a sub-directory in DOS, a sub-folder in the Windows GUI, a sub-page in our Wikicoding and so on), it becomes a huge problem. We can't have both variants and expect them to behave the same - its either one or the other and converting all the existing straight page titles to reflect a main page title with sub-pages would require bulk moves for weeks to accomplish (i.e Page:OurTitle.djvu/403 would need to be moved to ../403 in other words). And as long as Page:OurTitle.djvu is not somehow created, the typical < sub-page link to it's base should not appear along the top for now either ( see Page:4test01.djvu/1 for an example of this). -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Compulsory header

I have just gone through a batch of articles with {{subst:DNBset}}, being prompted for a header. Not very convenient having to ask twice to create an article, when you're doing 40. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what is the issue, DNBset is just DNB00 and hasn't been caught by the filter which is unchanged since July 2011. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I have brute-forced the filter, and you should now be okay. Uncertain why the change of behaviour, exploring that now. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

We had mw:MediaWiki 1.21/wmf9 deployed during the past half day, it will be the cause. Still hunting the what, but at least I know the why, and that a temporary fix is in place. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

In some further analysis it seems to be related to the subst: in the Template not allowing for the transformation and finding the underlying id for which it tests. I tested alternate templates with no issues. That means that the immediate impact is small with the (modified) hack I put in place and allows for us to resolve the problem for the longer term. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Split?

Wow. I haven't been here in a while, but this page has certainly developed into a monster, hasn't it? Could this perhaps be split up into separate pages for each major section, a la w:WP:VP? It would certainly make the page less intimidating to visitors and, I would imagine, make it easier for users who are only interested in certain types of discussion going on here. (How many users are really intersted in bot requests, for example?) Oh, I see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help already has its own page; is it really necessary to transclude it here? - dcljr (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree; I was having much the same thoughts last night. I don't see a great point in transcluding /Help into here - a link is fine. And do we need separate sections for Announcements, Proposals and Other discussions? When I see something on my Watchlist I'm unsure which section I should jump to to read it. I never seem to guess it right. Moondyne (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The three sections Announcements, Proposals & BOT approval requests; really don’t get that much activity. BOT approval is extra big this month, because we just started a 2 year recurring confirmation, so in a few days it will mostly be archived. I don’t see any great advantage to move splitting them off. I tend to agree about not continuing the transclude of help, You have to watch the help page if you want to catch the edits, and I don’t see an added benefit to also showing them here. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It just needs archiving, and we don't have a regular bot (and operator) to do it. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Posted Wikisource:Bot_requests#Archive_Bot to request a bot for archiving. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this, and several other posts within this section above, a proposal? What is achieved by placing some of these in a separate section, except ambiguity? The same goes for announcements. Bot requests are really a maintenance issue and of little or no interest to anyone except admins, regardless of activity. A heads up notice here would be fine. (a total of 4 users, all admins, have !voted there) Moondyne (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The bot requests being here reflects the history that the community, as a whole, has discussed and approved the functioning of bots (see Wikisource:Bots). If you wish to suggest a change, go for it. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I am in favour of getting rid of the three sections, so that every new discussion is posted to the bottom of the page where people automatically look. I don't like the idea of splitting this page: I like that we have a single place where the whole community comes for all discussions. Per Billinghurst, let's just archive more. Hesperian 14:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I had introduced a bot section as the requests were getting lost in the body, not being approved nor particularly reviewed. If we were going to merge the sections, it would be worthwhile consider a tag, or alternate means to identify the three sections, be it a little label to be inserted, or a small lead template that formats the start of the section, or that we could do for specific types, eg. announcements and bot requests. A semblance of structure is appreciated by some of us, and I don't mind which, just some means to identify the types. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I deliberately don't have this page on my watch list and I use the page history to find out what's new (and where it is) since I last looked. As a result, I'm not in favour of splitting this page up. Btw, I thought User:Sanbeg (bot) was archiving the Scriptorium. Does it simply need tweaking? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Would something like this be a solution? The Help part is a transclusion, the first three parts are simply collapsible ones. --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

All that centering makes it difficult to read and understand the flow of argument. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I like having everything both in sections and all on one page, although on some machines I was having serious problems reading Scriptorium before it was recently archived. Keeping on top of the archiving solves part of this. As a potential compromise for the rest, perhaps every section could be split to a subpage and transcluded back in, as with /Help at the moment? Then we would keep the all-in-one-place aspect of the page while people who only wanted to follow one section could do so. A problem with this would be the "Add topic" button. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Unfortunately, real life has gotten in the way with my coming around as often as I'd like. The script has actually been working pretty well, as long as I remember to run it. I didn't realize it had been so long since I've stopped by. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I am in favor of splitting, without transcluding sections back. We can also add other sections, currently handled at separate pages: administrator requests, bureaucrat requests, checkuser notifications (from Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard), bot requests, possible copyright violations, and proposed deletions.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Curious about beginning a relationship between Wikisource and the Ford Presidential Library

My name is Michael Barera, and I'm now the Wikipedian in Residence at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. The Library (and the Museum) has already established a collaboration project on Wikimedia Commons, and I'm curious about doing something similar here on Wikisource because so many of the materials that have been donated so far are documents. I'm a newcomer to Wikisource, and I don't yet understand all the protocols and guidelines, so I'd love to have some assistance in this project. I've just finished proofreading our first document on Wikisource, but I'm not quite sure about things like categorization and formatting here. Any help or advice you could give to me and the rest of the participants in the Ford collaboration would be much appreciated. It may be easier to contact me on either my English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons talk page. Thanks so much and take care! Michael Barera (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, welcome and thanks for adding the work. I left a message on your Wikipedia talk page but if by some chance you see this first, I took the last step and transcluded your work to Carter Interview with Harry Reasoner in the main namespace. Regarding Wikisource and the Library, a collaboration project can be arranged. It would need community agreement but the main Wikisource:Community collaboration might be possible too; its a subset of the current one anyway. There already seems to be enough on Commons to be going along with (although more can't hurt if you can upload it). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I've set up a WikiProject to co-ordinate transcribing material from the library. There are many documents already on Commons ready for proofreading and transclusion. See Wikisource:WikiProject Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for more (a list of a lot of the works is on the /Works subpage). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Other than Phe-bot (for Match and Split duties)

...is there an active bot that can generate OCR pages these days? Almost every one whose contributions I've checked has gone AWOL for months or even a few years. See also #BOT approval requests for a glimpse of what's going on. --Slgrandson (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Either make your request on WS:OCR or use the Internet Archive process (Help:DjVu files#Internet Archive) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Phe is around. Bot operators, like users and admins, come and go as RL interrupts. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 22:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Then again, can you suggest some kind of JS/CSS script to pull in all those red blocks? --Slgrandson (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

??? Do mean a bot to apply the text layers? Generally we don't encourage for a bot to just apply the text layers, though for some works which are biographical notes, eg. DNB, it has been done, though it can have specific issues. We haven't seen a lot of value in just having the layers from the djvu extracted and applied. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Addendum, The text layer should be applied automatically when you edit the page for the first time. If that is not happening it means that the text layer is not present in the work OR it needs to be shaken loose from the DjVu, and a purge of the file via the link on the Index page will usually loosen that. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with BWC & billinghurst on this but there is a chance you've been misunderstood so I'll expand a bit on the two most likely points related to your question(s)...

If you are looking to do a bulk-creation run where all the Page:s in an Index: are created by pulling the source file's embedded text-layer and dumping it UNedited into each new Page: created & saved.... As mentioned above, this practice has fallen way out of favour over the years - mostly becuase issues with the source file (missing or duplicated scan pages for example) will not be discovered until someone happens across them by chance & not diligence. Correcting the issue in those cases becomes reactive rather than proactive and can be labor & time intensive to resolve properly. Trust me - imho, unless your source file has been manually tweaked and verified beforehand, bulk creation creates more problems than it solves; but if your source file is known to be without issue, then the above can of course does not apply & you can go about running/locating that script.

If you have a source file but it lacks the embedded text-layer normally dumped into the edit box for you so you can edit/create a Page: for the first time... Run the source file through the online-services provided by Archive.org (PDFs) or Any2DjVu.org (DjVus) and then create/replace the finished file on Commons before creating any [more] Page:s in the Index.

There are many variants to the above but without knowing the specific file(s) in question, its hard to provide you with any more detailed guidance. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! (And of course, bulk creation of proper DJVUs is what I initially meant. You may as well take a look at A Princetonian and The Young Visiters for an idea, what with the dozens of red links that haven't been coloured. And yes, I'm thinking of a script to apply the OCR text into those pages. Say, am I acting like Sniffles or what?) --Slgrandson (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well in those two cases the pagelist matches-up with the scanned page progression so it doesn't look like there are any duplicate or missing pages and that's the primary concern with bulk creations. A spot check of Page:s in both shows OCR'd text of good quality (though no OCR is absolutely perfect; fair to light editing is still needed) but the second concern of the bulk-creation of nothing more than chicken-scratch or stoner-poetry doesn't seem likely in those two works either. The third yet-to-be mentioned concern has little to do with OCR, scripting or maintenance but more about intentions. I know at one point in Ws history it was "OK" to transclude everything -- including unproofRed pages like that -- to the mainspace just to fill-out or preset the entire basepage/subpage framework. We've come to call this "pre-mature transclusion" and strive to avoid the practice as much as doing so remains within reason or without review. We're really looking to transclude complete chapters or sections that are all at least statused Proofread in the Page: namespece. Now that I've mentioned & you've become aware of "pre-mature transclusion", its unlikely that you're going to attempt it (not that you would to begin with) so go on and hunt down that script or bot - I don't see any problem with doing those bulk-creations. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Works appearing within headers

I recently uploaded this index, which is a collection of poems. Spanning multiple pages is (I believe) a single poem that appears in the header. I would like to transclude it somehow but I am unsure of the proper way. Any ideas? For a quicker flip-through, check it out at IA. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

There are quite a few examples of poetry spanning pages existing already. Use of &ltsection ...> tags; wrap it in <poem>, if a stanza break is at the end of a page then ensure that {{nop}} is inside the close tag. Note that poem tag has to open and close on the same page. If you are going to use {{block center}} then you will need to consider the start and end variety if doing it within the Page: ns; or enclose it when you transclude it. I think that there is a style guide. LJB is our local champion. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Good question: How to transclude(?). I also believe it is a single poem. I found two instances where three of the stanzas in the poem are used in later publications to make up a smaller poem entitled "Where Love is King". Billinghurst, I think Theornamentalist knows the basic transclusion formatting options for poetry, but is unsure of how to deal with the poem in the "header" of the pages throughout about 1/2 of the text—it is that poem that seems to pose the problem (or challenge). As of right now, I don't know how that could be tackled... but I'm sure someone out there might have an idea. I'll keep it in the back of my mind, however. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Some public domain material about work: ...At The Gate Of Dreams. By H. E. Harman. Atlanta, Ga. Price, $1.00. This is Mr. Harman's second book of poems, his first, "In Peaceful Valley," having appeared some four years ago. The work is profusely illustrated with fine half-tone cuts, more than half the poems having special illustrations to assist in interpretation of the text. The typographical work contributes to the further daintiness of the volume. The hopefulness that pervades the work can be seen from these lines from the poem, "If Love Were King:" How would new blossoms by the roadway spring!... Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

My opinion: Transcribe exactly as is with framing (as image) and text—and all on the same Mainspace page; I think the readers will "get" it. Good thing is each poem (other than the one in the header) resides on its own separate page. MODCHK might have some ideas for formatting so that the text fits neatly within the bordering. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you had to be on the relevant pages to understand, they don't appear in the latter half of the book where I was looking. I don't think that having them in situ works as they will be blobs down the page, and when you get poems that carryover, or images, it isn't going to be as easy with vertical scrolling rather than horizontal page turns. This looks one of the rare occasions that we look to use old-fashioned mw:Extension:Labeled section transclusion, and not <pages>. It has the ability to include, or to exclude sections. So for the work, label the top section poem something like <section begin="toppoem" /> and keep that name running through each page and keep it in the body. For the individual poems utilise another section with a different name. Transclusion becomes a little trickier but not impossible. I would suggest transcluding the spread poem separately. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I rather suspect you two are at cross-purposes. To clarify, do both of you propose either preserving or eliding the "frame" around each page? Because the work is short, it might be worthwhile incorporating it (assuming a good clear scan can be extracted); but I think you will be surprised how quickly it loses its appeal when repeated so frequently?

And overlaying text and images upon an image as implicitly called for here might be ... virtually impossible
technically challenging ... MODCHK (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe create a single image with the "frame" and the image as one image. That would work. As to cross-purposes, it's probably good to get lots of ideas on the table. I'm not sold on my opinion above, and your point about "losing its appeal" after a while makes some sense. I'm anxious to see what's decided upon. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for weighing in. Without a proper TOC, I was thinking of using the auxiliary table on the lead page. I initially thought to create a page for each poem, hoping to somehow transclude the collected pieces of the work appearing in the headers, named (identified by LJB above) "Where Love Is King" on a single page. I will look at the LST provided by Billinghurst. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I was in fact just on the verge of suggesting this work might lend itself to a mainspace page-by-page version (if you chose to go with the framing approach), and only held off thinking everybody would be horrified. I think it might rather fit the "gate" motif? Has anybody thought about what a mess mashing the "header" poems together might produce? Maybe they need to be presented in small bursts. I haven't really looked into this, but there may be thematic conflicts between the stanzas? MODCHK (talk)

Just a thought... In case the author purposed each stanza (in italics) to go along somehow with the poems, then maybe an approach like this(?) Then you could transclude all poems on the same Mainspace page, and have the "side" poem follow along as per the author's assumed "intent" (which we can only guess at present). I might add, that where I found the three stanzas making up the poem entitled "Where Love is King" online, the last two stanzas do not follow in successive (albeit broken) order as they do in the longer work... The last stanza of the three comes before the middle stanza (in the longer work). So MODCHK might have a point where a "thematic" element might be at play. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

DNB milestone blog (for Wikimedia UK)

Here is something I wrote to mark the DNB WikiProject's posting of the Dictionary of National Biography; of which the first supplement was also finished a little while ago. The second supplement is also public domain, and there is a huge amount more to do to add value to the DNB. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad scans

Index:An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry and Its Kindred Sciences(Revised 1921)(Vol1).djvu

For some reason the last few pages of this got corrupted. Does anyone know of an alternate scan source for the missing and clipped pages towards the end of the document? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you trace the source files back to their original source? If you did, you'd see the PDF pages for those thumbnails clipped at the top probably just need the overlaps at the bottom trimmed out of the PDF before PDF conversion to DjVu. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

https://ia700304.us.archive.org/23/items/anencyclopediaf02hughgoog/anencyclopediaf02hughgoog.pdf needs re-conversion to djvu,

I don't have the tools to do this to hand, but the PDF version of that document DOES have the full scanset :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you know of a GUI Imaging tool for Windows that would enable the document to be fixed? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Procedural Delete: Index:An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry and Its Kindred Sciences(Revised 1921)(Vol1).djvu

Djvu with scan issues that needs careful re-conversion from source PDF.

Same for - Index:An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry and Its Kindred Sciences(Revised 1921)(Vol2).djvu

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done. The correct process is to replace the damaged files on Commons with the amended files. This is done by using the link Upload a new version of this file found in the File history section. This way you won't lose the work you've done already on the earlier pages. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can FIND an 'undamaged' version, good luck, The current Djvu is from IA , and the flaw in the scans appears to also exist in the source PDF from Google Books (bad clipping) :(. If you can find undamaged scans, Good Luck, but at the moment I've exhausted 'convenient' sources. Sfan00 IMG (talk)

Fwiw... I'm too busy this week but by next weekend I should have some free time to trim the excess out of the source PDF files at Google Books (now linked in the File: summary section btw). If you can wait that long and stop creating new Page:s until then, you should have the replacements in 10 days or so (save any unforcen forced errors that is). Agreed? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I can wait, Thanks. What seems to be the problem, is that the page layout the PDF assumes is the "page" boundary is not thescan image boundary which overspills the page. I suspect that the Djvu convertor then got confused ,leading to the clipped pages. Question, is there a tool which can patch the PDF page boundary metadata to be the image scan margins instead, because this, followed by an appropriate new conversion to Djvu, Should solve the issue. Shame about loosing the text layer..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
I started from scratch straight from GoogleBooks and the same thing keeps happening no matter what or which way I try to manipulate the file - the clipping effect always returns. Sorry. The earlier versions seem fine but I know this was the last edition before 1923 & kind of nice to have saved. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm Looks like It will have to be manual extraction of the image stream directly... We need a PDF guru! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Second that! My dealings with Acrobat & PDFs are limited to tweaking/fixing the basics (usually by trial & error) -- something like the anove clipping seems like it has to do with a problem in the original compiling of files into a PDF and not so much the files themselves. There is sooooo much other crap that is going in most PDF files that it would be nice to have somebody around who has dealt with it all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

In the PDF - the entire page scans ARE present, (because I did a test copy-paste into Ifranview), but the page boundaries

are badly set in places.. ;) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A place on WS?

Wanted to get some opinions as to whether there was a place for an annotated guide to Mrs. Coates' poetry as an Author:subpage on WS or WP. I started a "for example" in a sandbox. Historical background of the poems could be provided as well. Or is it too much of a personal project that should be pursued elsewhere? I would keep it simple and of course, public domain.—unsigned comment by Londonjackbooks‎ (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2013.

Maybe. We need to relaunch the debate over annotation. It would be in the main namespace, however, rather than the Author namespace. The other alternative is Wikibooks. (It would be deleted as Original Research on Wikipedia.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Taking a look at Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks?, I noted the following: "As a point of overlap between the two projects, Wikisource also allows the inclusion of annotated texts. If you would like to write an annotated text with sparse annotations, or a critical edition of a text, consider hosting your work on Wikisource instead." Not representative of current WS community opinion, I don't think(?) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Something along these lines, maybe? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Got something started at Wikibooks. I wish they had all our templates; it's like starting from scratch for me! :( Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You should be able to create the same templates there that are here. meta:Help:Transwiki#Begin_transwiki describes the process for transwiki and attribution. You should check to see if they have the same template but with a different name before creating it. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have already inquired over there about the availability of a similar template, and nothing conclusive so far. Do you maybe know someone here at WS who is familiar also with WB who could create the same {{Block center}} template over there using the guidance from the page you linked to above? and then any subsequent requests for similar templates in the future I could do myself by copying their procedure(?). I wasn't sure about the "copy and paste the original page's history log under a new heading" part... Would that history be pasted to the template's Talk page in a separate section from the original 'Talk'? Should it be placed at top or at bottom? Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure who your best resource would be for recreating them over there. As for the history, I usually just but a section like ==Wikisource edit history for copy and paste transwiki== and put the details there. Here is one I did at Wikipedia w:Talk:List_of_Jewish_deportees_from_Norway_during_World_War_II. Jeepday (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay... I'll give it a shot. No better way to learn, I guess! Thanks for the direction. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hoping I did things correctly (Template page | Talk page)... It worked, at any rate. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Annotations, Comparisons and Translations

I have just started a proposal about derivative works; this section is intended to draw extra attention and explain it a little. Derivative works, such as translations, already exist on English Wikisource and are mentioned in Wikisource:What Wikisource includes. However, there is no agreed policy, I'm sure there have been deletions, and there was a serious conflict of opinions about annotation last year. Even the bit that does seem semi-agreed, translations, is still just a proposed policy seven years later; despite having its own WikiProject.

I will be making the proposal in two parts. First, just to decide clearly whether we will accept this or not. I see that as a big problem with the previous annotation issue. Having a simple yes/no question will hopefully get everyone on the same page and clarify our basic position as a community before moving on to the details. If the first part tends towards support for derivative works I will make a second proposal to haggle over the details. This proposal might actually work more like a "Request for Comment" on other projects, where different options can be laid out in series and each discussed separately before coming to a consensus. We will need to at least outline in what circumstances, and how much, we will allow the various types of derivation.

There are lots of ways to handle derivative works. Oldwikisource:Wikisource:Subdomain coordination gives a look at some of the different approaches. Hebrew Wikisource, for example, has a separate namespace for derivative works; the only example of this in any Wikisource as far as I am aware. On the other hand, Italian Wikisource bans both translation and annotation (and, presumably, comparison or any other form of "value-added" text). We could go either way or somewhere in between. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio

I am afraid we have to delete St. John's Eve (Kochanowski). It's a 1928 translation of a PD work, but the translator only died in 1999 (Author:Marjorie Beatrice Peacock). PS. I see there are some exceptions, can anyone verify it is indeed PD? --Piotrus (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#St._John.27s_Eve_.28Kochanowski.29. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

[Short_Titles_Act_1896]

This item with a long table appears to cause the transclusion to brak with a node limit error.

This is possibly salavagable by subst'ing the template concerned. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to split the transclusion up into subpages with links from the Main page. I suggest you put the first schedule into its own page: Short Titles Act 1896/First Schedule. As the second schedule is much longer it will need to be split further, maybe by alphabet? I see that there are a large number of pages (>50%) still to be proofread for the second schedule and thus it would be premature to transclude it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I was going to do that but trying to edit the page causes a 'Wikimedia Server can't cope' error.For whatever reason Short Titles Act 1896 Cant be directly edited at the moment. Delete and start again, with the split? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Good news - got some material for us!

I succeeded in convincing a translator of public domain Polish poetry, Author:Jarek Zawadzki, to relicence his work under CC-BY-SA. It is at http://archive.org/details/PolishPoetryInEnglish . I will see about transferring his work here (although if anyone feels like doing it before I get around to doing so, go ahead), but a quick question: what should be added to Author:Jarek Zawadzki? --Piotrus (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

RE: His author page. For the moment, I've just added the licence you mention and set a question mark for the birthdate (so he is categorised as a living author). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

OTRS will need to be done ... prcoess similar to Commons:Commons:OTRS just substitute the sister wiki stuff. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any OTRS is needed since the linked archive.org page clearly states the new, free license (Creative Commons license: Attribution-Share Alike 3.0). --Piotrus (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but all the files are still those derived from 2009 and have a 2007 Copyright notice secured for the English translations right in the scans. Plus, the scans are double-paged, which is great if you want to read the book at IA in single page mode, but for transcription and proofreading here on en.WS double-page introduces a problem or two. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you lost me. I don't understand the problem? The book is published on archive.org under a free license. Where's the problem? I see the old copyright notice on the scans, but that's for 2007, as of now the author decided to use a CC-BY-SA which can be seen clearly in real time on archive.org (do I need to upload a screenshot of a free license on that page?). Also: should I just start copy and paste of the work from the files at archive.org, or will there be some djvu/OCR magic? --Piotrus (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Not quite.... the web page linking to the file(s) states CC-BY-SA but the password-protected source PDF file states Copyright secured for the English translation (as the Polish content is old enough to be in PD). The license claimed on the web page hosting the links to the files should match the license actually stated in the files, No? How long before somebody at Commons sees the copyright notice and deletes the file? You must put yourself in our position when it comes copyright status & verification. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have asked the author to upload an updated version; he has uploaded some correct files already, so I hope we will get this ironed out soon. --Piotrus (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC) PS. And he has updated the PDF to display the correct licensing. --Piotrus (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That sounds sufficient to me as long as it can be demonstrated that it was the copyright holder who uploaded and released. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I would think we can trust w:Internet Archive about as much as ourselves. They do have good reputation for respecting copyright topics, I believe. --Piotrus (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I added the first work based on his translations, it's at Bogurodzica. Please let me know what I can do better next time! --Piotrus (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Picture Posters images

All images for Index:Picture Posters.djvu have been uploaded to the commons. The link to the images is on the Index page. I will keep on inserting the full page images, and if anyone is interested in proofreading a small project, then this is it. — Ineuw talk 11:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Procedural Delete request

For whatever reason this page is uneditable- Short_Titles_Act_1896, as it's too long. Delete and start again once its been split. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Done sort of. Please don't make requests and then fiddle so that the request no longer applies as written. We prefer not to delete mainspace pages if possible as it loses all the history. All that needed to happen to make the page editable was to reduce the range of pages in the <pages> tag. This I have done. I then undid your out of process page move. I leave it to you to add the links to the sub-pages. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, but earlier when I tried to click Edit to do that, I was getting no-sense out of Mediawiki. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

search broken

When I search for "Bergson" it is not finding Author:Henri Bergson in fact it is saying "There were no results matching the query." on both default and author only searches.

Actually looks like all searches are broken searching for "Wikisource" gets this:

There were no results matching the query.

There is a page named "Wikisource" on this wiki.

Jeepday (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Now OK--Mpaa (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Random grey blocks in a PDF from IA

In File:Chronological_Table_and_Index_of_the_Statutes.djvu

Pages: 78, 91, 94, 100, 108, 122, 167, 178, 214, 228, 237, 278, 286, 503, 512, 547, 560, 734, 754, 770, 773, 781, 796, 806 some pages have very well defined missing blocks (white in the Djvu scan), a quick check of the comparative PDF indicates that the "missing" portions are in fact present in the original PDF, but as 'grey' blocks in an otherwise B/W scan.

Does anyone have a technical explanation for why a PDF would have random 'grey-blocking' ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This file is incorrectly defined and uploaded to the wrong place. Please wait until I check this file on IA. — Ineuw talk 00:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I checked the file on IA. It's a Google PDF and every page is watermarked accordingly. At this point in time, I refer this to User:George Orwell III, who has not yet shared with me into the secrets of watermark removal. Once he gives his OK, I will handle processing of the file, upload it to the commons and create the Index page for the djvu. — Ineuw talk 00:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Not following you guys. What exactly is needed here? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Check the pages I mention in the DJVU against the PDF :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That is a symptom of the original scanning - instead of a "picture" taken of an entire page as whole & in one shot, the software mistakenly isolated the area in question as if it where a page itself. In the resulting PDF this is usually not an issue since a picture (scan) of the "false" page on top of the picture (scan) of the full page is displayed as whole and not as the layers they really are. Newer versions of Acrobat allow for the flattening of mistaken layers back into a single page image. What happened here was at somepoint in the conversion from PDF to DjVu, the "background" of the mistake layers (white box, gray box, etc.) were kept instead of the foreground stuff (the image of text in a transparent field). The PDF needs to be optimized first using some more current software than used back in 2009 and it should rederive as expected but I can't guarantee that . -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Index:Ford manual 1919.djvu

This is very nearly complete, barring one page that has a low quality scan I can't read, anyone here able to read truly awful scans? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Which page in particular? (to save me looking through all the not-proofread and problematic pages)Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Page 46 in the running order. I typed this up manually by going back to the PDF at Internet Archive which was slightly clearer, and I was able to recover. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Still to do are the images Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I volunteer.— Ineuw talk 09:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded the images to commons:Category:Ford 1919\Owners manual.— Ineuw talk 06:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

All images now present in the work, but need to be sized and captioned. Let's get this finished:) Sfan00 IMG (talk)

Congraulations, This is now complete! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

poem gap

I've made mention about this (skirted around the subject) a couple times in the past, but I was wondering if it was possible to create a poem gap ({{Pgap}}, e.g.) that would be based on the emspace (one emspace by 'default'), but could be manipulated much like the {{gap}} is, where you can set the width manually. This would give more flexibility with poetry indentation, and the benefit with using an emspace as the basis is that it renders more accurately than the current {{gap}} when copying/pasting text. Any thoughts? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

gap is meant to be able to be utilised for the situation that you described, so it would be better to fix what we have, rather than create a different solution and then have to retrofit. Hesperian derived the original logic, and for the life of me I cannot remember why this was the evolved solution. Maybe he can comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. There's no "problem" with the {{gap}},—It does what it is designed to do here visually. It is possible to use {{gap|1em}} for a shorter width, but it is primarily the copy/paste issue that I was wondering about which the use of emspaces seems to solve. {{gap}} as it stands renders one space in copy/paste per gap; emspaces render one emspace per emspace. Just an example of me being picky again. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If I understand LJB's proposition correctly, what you want is an em-space variation of {{bar}}? This would not be hard to create (simply copy {{bar}} and change the constant from "—" to "&emsp;" in the {{loop}} call); but modifying {{gap}} would be next to impossible, the problem being what exactly would {{gap|1}} mean―a 1px » «, 1em » «, 1en » «, 1% » « etc. space gap? If the poor template cannot be coded to figure out what to produce (currently: » «), how can a sensible cut/paste result even be reasonably expected?

Although I know this solution is not popular with some editors; I have in the past used {{em}} as shorthand for {{gap|1}}. However this would have (even worse) cut/paste characteristics than {{gap}}. Any further arguments for/against? MODCHK (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Individual Engagement Grant proposals until February 21

I apologize if this message is not in your language. Please help translate it.

The Wikimedia Foundation is considering Individual Engagement Grant proposals from community members. Please join the discussion and share your thoughts about these ideas, until February 21. The following proposal may be of particular relevance for this Wikimedia project:

• Grants:IEG/Elaborate Wikisource strategic vision (10000 EUR)

Thanks! --Siko Bouterse, Head of Individual Engagement Grants, Wikimedia Foundation 01:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Correct it here.)

Reading this, I saw that there is an Internet Archive (import tool). I was not aware of it, so I share the info here. Has anyone tried it?--Mpaa (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just tried it. Fairly simple to use. However, it tells me that it's uploaded the file onto Commons, but I can't find it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

In case you have not found it, it is uploaded by commons:User:IaUploadBot--Mpaa (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library

There is a new WikiProject for material from the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. This was mentioned in #Curious about beginning a relationship between Wikisource and the Ford Presidential Library (above) but I thought it could do with some explicit advertising. I've added a subpage loosely based on WS:NARA to list a lot of the works on Commons. A few works have already been proofread but attention from more users can't hurt. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggest to slightly restructure this page for WMF deployments

I would like to suggest that as WMF is now having fortnightly mini upgrades, and look to be keeping to schedule, that we spin out to a level ONE heading =WMF deployments= and then have a running list of the upgrade with a date of local impact, and to note any forthcoming significant changes that may be of note, and to enable to better capture any issues.

To note that we were updated last Wednesday to wmf10, nothing stimulating from brief glance. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I suggest that such notices be incorporated in the existing = Announcements = section, and as these are likely to have a very narrow audience, perhaps as a collapsible level 2 section. Moondyne (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that the general user is more likely to come across a problem introduced in an update. The purpose was more to alert people to the change dates, and to be alert us of weirdness. I wasn't looking at burying people in detail, it is all Greek to most of us. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Errata

What is best practice concerning applying errors shown in an Errata page into the Pages? Also, what about author's hand written notations? eg. here and here.Moondyne (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Usual practice for errata is to put them in the notes field on the relevant mainspace page. For the two hand-written notes you link, I wouldn't include them because they're not part of the book as published. We also don't have evidence that the two notes are in the author's handwriting, it could be the librarian's hand. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I would not presume to call it 'best practice', but an example of thoughtful handling of an Errata can be seen at History of botany (1530–1860)/Book 1/Chapter 4. Hesperian 03:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both. Moondyne (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Devil's advocate on speedy validations

So much has been posted on various Talk pages on this subject that I am not sure exactly how this has all played out, but thinking while driving (still legal, but more expensive now) it seems to me that the main issue at hand is the following in a nutshell:

Do you assert that you can competently validate a page in [five seconds]? Hesperian 01:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The evidence would suggest otherwise ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That is, unless a large number of pages (tabs) were opened up in an editor's browser while they worked on them before saving all of them en masse. Granted, "163 pages" is a lot of open tabs in this case. So, in the absence of "evidence", it would seem to me (in this case) that an interesting 'probationary' measure might be to challenge the editor(s)-in-question to a validation spree of sorts. Heaven knows we have lots to validate around here. Pick an agreed-upon time to run the validation challenge, choose a comparable work (or smaller works) to the validated work(s)-in-question to be validated, and see if the editor can duplicate their feat (minus the mistakes). But do not let the editor know what work will be chosen until the agreed-upon time. Just a thought. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but no. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Not so interesting... I was half serious, and it took another drive and a bagel to realize that there was a flaw in my 'logic' somewhere anyway... Anyway, we may only guess the reason behind the rapid validation—only what we can figure technically, if even that—absent an editor's clear explanation. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that it is helpful to take one sentence out of the context of the argument, and especially to bring it here in a provocative sense. If you really want the conversation, maybe take it to a talk page somewhere. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

What to do?

Greetings all,

"We" are in the process of proofreading a work, Index:Eight chapters of Maimonides on ethics.djvu, where the last section, about 50 pages, is a supplement to the main topic making up the majority of the rest of the book. It is primarily in Hebrew, which is a language read from right-to-left. The oddity causing an issue in this case is that the page progression for this last section starts at the end of the Index: and works its way back towards the front until it meets with the end of the primary body of text.

I'm assuming this is (or was) the proper way to read the text of a right-to-left based language such as Hebrew and that is why it was published that way originally. The Hebrew portions (the majority in that supplemental section) is annotated in both English and Hebrew but still follows the back-to-front layout.

A contributor has marked the Index: as having a structural issue with its associated source file and that it needs fixing in order to properly continue proofreading the work. At face value, this seems to make sense since there is no way to "reverse" the transclusion order using the normal <pages> tag - we'd have to use 50 some-odd individual commands in reverse page-range ordering to keep the top-down reading aspect of these pages when they are ultimately transcluded to the mainspace. Re-ordering the page progression for this section is possible with some effort but maybe the use of 50 some-odd page tags is unavoidable regardless in order to 'stay as true as possible to the original work as published'.

Any thoughts on how (& why) "we" should proceed here? -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Having little actual knowledge, I would lean towards leaving the index as is. I would assume that a person who is reading right to left would push the "<" button to get the next page the same as I push the ">" when reading left to right. Not sure how the main space alignment would be. Does the top of djvu/176 go above or below djvu/175? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The bottom of djvu/176 should be "touching" the top of djvu/175 the way I see it. I like the rationale you laid out though - if we were reading the physical book in our hands, we'd have to flip to the last page to start reading that section from it's begining so your arrow logic makes sense that way too. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Either shift the whole work (en and he) to oldWikisource as a multilingual work, or we just do the English pages, and mark the others as empty for interwiki. The former means that we shift the problem, the latter would allow for a mixed and shared solution. I don't see why we would be too concerned about a RTL (right to left) component that we are not transcluding. Wikis configs are set per RTL language (Aeb/Ar/Arc/Arz/Azb/Bcc/Bqi/Ckb/Dv/En_rtl/Fa/Glk/He/Khw/Kk_arab/Kk_cn/Ks_arab/Ku_arab/Mzn/Pnb/Ps/Sd/Ug_arab/Ur/Yi) which is by language setting. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The "concern" was over the usage of that particular Index: status and this discussion was started to support the eventual removal of that status. The solutions, which I totally agree with, that you've laid out deals with the continuation of the proofreading process after the bang to stop proofreading is removed however. I'm trying to change is the status back to something that allows for those solutions to move forward.

The only point I'm not clear on is if a RTL is suppose to be transcluded so the that resulting effect would not only be reading right-to-left but from the bottom of the screen up towards the top as well. If that is acceptable (or the application of 50 some odd pages commands in reverse in the mainspace is acceptable), I can wash my hands of the notion that the file needs structural adjustment in good conscience no matter where it winds up being fully or partially transcribed. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

A quick check on heWS would suggest that top down is fine. The real challenge will come for Tpt's export tool when there are sequences of pages in LTR and RTL in the same transclusion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello! A few notes from the person who suggested the change:

• This edition of Eight Chapters by Maimonides was edited by Joseph Isaac Gorfinkle, and is based on the translation of the original Judeo-Arabic to Hebrew by Samuel ibn Tibbon, in the late 12th century. It includes three parts: An introduction, an English translation of the Hebrew translation (with notes), and a critical edition of the Hebrew translation by ibn Tibbon with English notes.
• Hebrew is read from right to left and top to bottom: if we have the Hebrew text as part of the work, then having the file transcluded in its current order would make it impossible to read normally.
• Another problem with the current file is that it makes the page numbering in the index file is mistaken, since the Hebrew section has separate numbering than the English.
• I don't know what the rules for inclusion are: However, wherever the Hebrew pages are going to be typed, whether here, in the Hebrew Wikisource, or in the Multilingual Wikisource, the file would need to be changed, since it is in the wrong order even with a Hebrew interface.

Inkbug (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikpedia links in Emily Dickinson poems

Hi. I noticed that in all the poems of these series, see e.g. Great Caesar! Condescend there is a link to wikipedia. But all the several links I tried had no corresponding page. Does it make sense to have a "red" link to WP to be prepared for? Considering also that as the link appears blue, the reader will assume its existence?--Mpaa (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If the page doesn't exist, there shouldn't be a link; the links are there to provide more information, and if there isn't anything to provide, it just becomes confusing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Links are supposed to add value if we link off-wiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

A search of Wikipedia only found w:List of Emily Dickinson poems, as a potential link to location, and it just has a link back to us. I removed the Wikipedia link on article pending creation of an article about the poem (which seems unlikely). JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh my, there are almost 2000 poems, many with the problem. Could they be remove by bot? or do they all need to be removed by hand? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday)

Can be done by bot. Another option is nullify the parameter in {{EDheader}}. Not future proof as we will have problems when there will be a wikipedia page.--Mpaa (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I would think removal would be the preferred method. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Once removed, the following, at least, are WP articles: [5] —unsigned comment by Londonjackbooks (talk) .

I was going to leave those that had articles in place, however, I noticed that there is a capitalisation issue with at least one I think it probably best to consider that we just relink afresh. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Done — billinghurst sDrewth 04:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Table within body of text similar to a Table of Contents

How would I go about creating the Wikisource version of the table in the middle of this page from Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines? I recall seeing some sort of Table of Contents template before that would do something similar, but I can't recall its name or find it, and I'm not even sure if it would work. Advice? —Kierkkadon ^{talk/contribs} 19:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I would do it as an ordinary table and not worry about the leader dots, but the templates you're thinking about are {{dotted TOC page listing}} or it's alternative {{TOC begin}} and {{TOC row}}. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I just employed {{dotted TOC page listing}} on this page as an example. Feel free to remove if you don't like the result. MODCHK (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Link do Wikidata

I added into User:Alex brollo/common.js a tool slightly modified from the version suggested into wikidata; it adds a link to wikidata item for pages when an entry to wikidata exists (with the same pagename of a ns0 or nsAuthor paga here) into Toolbox; but it saves too the whole object read by ajax call to wikidata into a $("body").data() container. It seems to run (I tested in some Author pages) and perhaps you'll find it useful. Similar tools are running into it.wikisource, Commons, it:wikivoyage and old.wikisource. --Alex brollo (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

OCR for music ?

Whilst talking with the Musescore Community about various things someone mentioned that MuseScore 2.0 may have features for Optical Music recognition.

In the disscusion one the Muescore devs also mentioned Audiveris - http://audiveris.kenai.com/

Does anyone from Wikisource want to do some pilot tests, with a view to getting the Wikisource Music collection into formats other than Scans? (like MIDI).

I appreciate I'm not exactly flavour of the month at the moment, but thought the community may be interested in possible technical innovations that might be useful to the project. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You might want to search the Scriptorium archives for previous discussions on this. From memory there have been several discussions around installing extensions etc, but nothing has ever come of it. That's not to say we can't have a fresh discussion about it now; I'm just letting you know that there is context that you might like to familiarise yourself with. Hesperian 01:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

As group we tend not to hold grudges, and try to value each suggestion on it’s own merits. As Hesperian has suggested look though the Scriptorium archives, to find old discussions you may find user with an interest that have moved away from Wikisource but are still active on other projects. As I recall most of the past conversations have been about technical difficulties of posting music here. As long as the copyright is ok, music would fall into Wikisource:WWI#Analytical_and_artistic_works. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There was some code added to replicate Lilypond, and the bugzilla request is listed at oldwikisource:Wikisource:Wishlist — billinghurst sDrewth 14:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

bugzilla:33193 — billinghurst sDrewth 14:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

seems to be waiting on bugzilla:43388 which seems to have had a patch this week, so my guess will be that it will be put onto test in the next round, and if all goes well, it may be out with 1.21wmf12 or thereabouts

The main problem at the moment with music OCR is that there's currently nowhere here for the output to be accepted, interpreted and then reproduced. There's also the problem of poor scans as music OCR needs scans of a reasonable quality. I've been holding off on doing music for the extension that Billinghurst mentions. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Find and replace

I've started using Firefox add-in FoxReplace to assist proofreading/fix common ocr errors. It works fine. Just wondering if anyone else uses it or something similar. Moondyne (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I use Fire fox find (out of the box function) to find things, but I manually copy and paste corrections. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I am still utilising scripts based on P/child's old regex script with my customisations (initially stolen from Hesperian). — billinghurst sDrewth 14:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Tanakh pages

In the interest of cleaning up Bible, I'd like to clean up our two Tanakh pages. Tanakh was apparently copied from [6], and Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917) was copied from [7], and is being slowly migrated to a set of djvus. Both of these websites have the Jewish Publication Society translation of 1917 as their source, which is also what the djvus are. I think Tanakh should be a translations page to disambiguate these two, and it should be linked in a section of Bible. My question is, what should Tanakh be moved to? --Jfhutson (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, it appears that Tanakh contains comparison with Hebrew. I suppose the outcome of the current derivative works discussion will bear on whether this should be kept, but perhaps Tanakh should be moved to something like Tanakh (interlinear) if it is to be kept. --Jfhutson (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)