Help talk:Page status

Page proofread status color on index page - bug

When viewing the index page for a work, the color coding on the individual pages sometimes does not match the page's proofread status. For instance, a page might be color-coded red (not proofread) on the index page, yet the page itself is proofread (yellow). I've seen these color errors since October 2015. Other users have mentioned to me that they also see color errors on the index pages. I don't know if anyone is working on fixing this. I get the impression the proofread page extension is being re-worked, but I don't understand the technical terminology. So I'm making a note here that this is a bug. Outlier59 (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about status standards

I am a little unsure of the difference between "Problematic" and "Not Proofed". Not arguing about this, just an example about 5 pages dealing with a treaty.

There was OCR text entered into a page and it was labeled "Not Proofed". I had the words formatted in a Word document and I pasted them in. I did not have the sidenotes, but figured they did not matter (wrong, as I now understand). I checked the next box over ("Proofed") because I thought it was a great improvement from readability. Someone kindly pointed out that there was more work to do.

The labels on the scale and the description of the labels need fleshing out. I like the scale, but newbies like me (if we bother to click on the link to this page), don't have a clue about what the more experienced mean about each category. Examples might help. I will give it a try sometinme this week.Rcollman (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rcollman: We try to keep it simple, and it is the same for all the wikisources. Stages 2/3/4 are all particular states, whereas stage 1 covers all the examples of not in other states

1. Not proofread = all the text is has not been checked and formatted to paragraphs, etc. (this covers numbers of states or not ready)
2. Problematic = particular problem of any sort, ie. missing something [table, music, image, bad scan, text in another character set ...] and we have templates and categorisation for most of these problems
3. Proofread = I think that I have gone through and checked all the words, and the rendition is pretty well what was in the work and per the style guide
4. Validated = Second person through agreeing

I hope that helps and informs your later questions. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Validation path suggestions

The current text of the Validation path subheading of the ProofreadPage extension involves five levels:

↗ Without text
empty page	→ Not proofread	→ Proofread	→ Validated
	↘ Problematic ↗

There are at least 7 levels, or 6 for sake of discussion

Golden rules, always state the positive, keep the language simple. The validation checklist creates the path. The path is a straight line, not a decision tree. Thus if every created page can only exist when it has an image, then there is one step. I don't know about this wiki, but in most wikis, page creation is one task, inserting content is another. Could be 7 steps. Below are the

No page -> Validated checklist
Create page -> Add Image Only -> Needs text -> Needs work -> Ready to be Proofread -> Proofread -> Validated This is the validation path,

Needs text -> Needs work -> Ready to be Proofread -> Proofread -> Validated This rewords the 5 scale descriptions.

Next step would be to have subheadings and examples for each of the 5 scale descriptions.

Comments? Rcollman (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have changed the word "levels" to "states" on the obverse. A page can be in any of the states, it is not linear, where there are two different end points ("without text" and "validated"), where the only progression step is "proofread". Having more division on "not proofread" may give a greater level of accuracy, but it isn't informative, and doesn't change the approach for proofreading (in my opinion). — billinghurst sDrewth 07:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I see. Some pages just have text and no images. Thus one size does not fit all. Been looking at other pages :) Really like the help I have received. Rcollman (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand that "without text" initially is not exactly the expected phrase, though once one reads the help page it is clarified, and stated not to use with an image. If you have better words, happy to hear them. Once the community set up the process many years ago, each stage became embedded in numbers of parts of naming and categorisation, and to change it, while still possible, is an amount of work. I don't think anyone has seen it to be of (sufficient) benefit. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I view this as a process summary. With the goal of every page is to be validated. Will every page reach the goal, no. Some will never get past without text. Really appreciate your comments, I am a newbie here and need to do some more looking and editing things I know about before I continue this kind of discussion:) Best to all Rcollman (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rcollman: Please know that we know that you are new, and that your comment is appreciated. Having someone read the help pages and ask framing questions is ideal. Continue on! — billinghurst sDrewth 20:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

My best friend in college used to say: "There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who are _________ and don't know it, and those who are _________ and do." Of course he would use some derogatory slang term in the blank. The first time he said that he concluded "And we both know it!" Just did some more looking around and starting to see the diversity, some pages have no images, duh! Rcollman (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That was not the intent of my comment. I was more meaning that as a casual contributor that your edits are marked as needing patrolling, (we are a heavily patrolling community), we see you, when you make comment in comment namespaces we pay attention. Re help pages, that is not our strength, we put in what is necessary and then get distracted by transcriptions and go back to what we like to do. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Invisible Page Status?

I've noticed that this is something that happens occasionally for larger texts, but when I look at the index page for some books, the links to each individual page don't display their page status color. for example Index:The Book of Scottish Song.djvu appears to me like this. I don't have this problem with smaller sources. I'm using the latest version of chrome, if that's of any help. Legofan94 (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This has been happening with me too for some time, but only when I'm logged out. I'm using Firefox for Mac which has just been updated to 53.0 (64-bit). I checked again and it's still happening. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Legofan94: This happens to the index after changing status of a page, to proofread, validated etc. Purge the index file cache, that will show the page status again. Hrishikes (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hrishikes:I've already attempted this by clicking the refresh button in the top right corner of the index page, no change in the appearance of the file. Legofan94 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Legofan94: I was talking about the purge option under the "More" menu. This usually works for me. Which index r u talking about? Hrishikes (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Legofan94: the top right refreshes the text layers from the file at Commons, rather than the Wikisource Index: page. I have the clock gadget on, and use that to refresh. To explain the status display works, the page status of each page is transcluded into the index page on the page icon, and that update following a page edit can be in delay — it runs as a background job on a priority, like happens with things in and out of categories. A purge becomes a job happening in the foreground now. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This problem (disappearance of page status colors after proofreading a page) seems to be specific to English Wikisource; I also work in Bengali Wikisource, the problem is not there, it seems. (This phenomenon is present when I proofread a page of Index:Three Years in Europe.djvu, having 434 pages; but not when I work on this Bengali index, containing 401 pages, or this one, containing 453 pages.) Hrishikes (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Pretty certain that it is technical issue; I am presuming that it is due to the size of the databases, the servers they are on, etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Partially resolved after this event, now after proofreading a page, the index file, on refreshing, shows page status colors, but the last proofread page is shown as not proofread. True status is shown after purging. Hrishikes (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)