User talk:CalendulaAsteraceae

An addition to WD version

If it were still a simple template, I might be trying to add an "if P2679" (author of forward) to it for a {{WD forward}}. So, I took a look at the module. Truly, it was easier to behold, without the {{{{{{{{|}}things}}}}}}}}}}}}}} }} in it, but I am hesitant to mess with it. I think just:

	version_info.forward = p.WDStatement({
		['item'] = item,
		['prop'] = 'P2679',
		['prefix'] = ', forward by ',
		['getLink'] = true
	})

And probably a request to another module somewhere.... So, eh, could you?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Outside R/L

These do not always work well with Dynamic layouts. If you can make them work with Dynamic layouts so much the better. See also {{MarginNote}}, {{margin block}}, {{numbered div}} etc.. If you've already started on a consolidation,there is sense in doing a whole scale overhaul of all of these.. :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Page:Provisional_Collection_of_Taxes_Act_1968_(UKPGA_1968-2_qp).pdf/5 - Here Outside L/R might need a manual shift adjustment( The template doesn't take into account that the margin on a list/indetation might have been tweaked, hence one of the sidenotes that is a reference to another act isn't flush with the left/right hand side respectively. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Ideally Outside(L/R) etc , and left/right sidenote should all do the same thing! Outside L/R however have the ability due to being floated to have clear(left/right) setup (to avoid overlaps) as opposed to left/right sidenotes that are absolute positioned. This may need a MASSIVE (and possibly breaking change) overhaul.

(Aside: I will continue with rh migration when I have time.)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

A minor "linter"- https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=28031835 This tracks Mostly mainspace pages where there is both an Outside L and Outside R. With the exception of the legislation in the query, other items should be made consistent in Mainspace(on transcusion0 bu using the RL or LR variants appropriately for the works concerned. ( Fixes required are an afternoon's effort at most.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Outside R/L and other templates..

Would it be possible to make Template:Outside/styles.css aware of dynamic layouts? (such as those in MediaWiki:Gadget-PageNumbers-core.css Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

There may be other templates that do "clever" layout tricks that should also be examined with a view to having ALL templates that need to be aware of the 'dyanmic' layout behaviour updated. (including the various approaches used for sidenotes/Outside/overfloats etc..)

The need for consolidation to one common schema is obvious :). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The_Economics_of_Climate_Change:_a_Primer

This was showing up as having paired missing/stripped tags , and the only reason seems to be that a DIV in a list, confuses the linter. Not sure how to solve this, so can you take a look?
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Template:Math

Can you take a look into the continued need for this? it is seemingly in use on some specific works, I thought Wikiosurce used <math></math>? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that math tags are a better way to go. The template has 205 transclusions in pagespace (and 248 uses total), so transitioning would take a little time but should be perfectly doable. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Wide left-hand pline numbers -- testcase and possible fix?

I noticed that the line numbers in a version of Beowulf were overlapping with the poem's text. I am a longstanding Wikipedia editor, a somewhat experienced Wikisource editor, but I have never tried to update a template before, and I have minimal expertise with CSS. I thought I might try this in the sandbox.

I found the pline testcases that you made here Template:Pline/testcases, and added a test case for wide numbers, copied directly from Page:Gummere_(1909)_The_Oldest_English_Epic.djvu/107. When rendered, it showed overlapping numbers and poem text, the same as what occurred in the original Beowulf page.

Then I edited the CSS in the pline sandbox here Template:Pline/sandbox/styles.css, and saved the sandbox CSS template. I switched from -3em to -5em in the left margin, and also adjusted the corresponding width.

This did seem to fix the overlap of numbers in rendering the testcase page, while not messing up the rendering of shorter numbers. But, confusing me, the testcase rendering is now fixed (non overlapping) for what it claims is both the ordinary pline template version (which I didn't change), and the sandbox pline template version. I do not understand why. I am presuming that this is a bug in the test case.

I have verified that in the original Beowulf page, the page is still rendering with overlapping numbers and text, even after purging its cache, so I don't think that I have managed to inadvertently change a globally used template (just a sandbox version).

Since you seem to be intimitely familiar with this template, I thought I should ask you to review my work, revise it however you please, and consider making a similar change to the master pline template.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikisource! -- Gnuish (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that I've seen this, appreciate your efforts, and will review the code when I have time! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

(One thing I haven't tested is whether the modified pline in the sandbox works well for WIDER texts (with narrow numbering), perhaps one where the long lines of poetry are actually being line-wrapped onto multiple lines by the HTML renderer, since I don't have such a poem readily to hand.) Gnuish (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Dates of Shakespeare plays

I see you're setting some of these based on date of first performance but others on date of first publication, and possibly some with date of first written. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

On a related note, I think it's more useful to categorize our plays by decade than by individual year. We seldom have two plays from the same year, so we're effectively creating a separate category for each play, and no means for people to easily find plays that are roughly contemporaneous other that visiting each year's category. Could we double list by both year and decade? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to defer to you on the question of what year to use for play categorization, and double-listing plays with year and decade sounds fine to me. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 23:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

At least for older plays, it's often better to use date of first performance, because we are more likely to know that and it's more representative of the play. Consider, for example, that the plays of ancient Greece were first "published" centuries after being written. But I want to think over the implications first. For 20th-century plays, for example, the play often premiered a year before being published, and that can have copyright implications.

As for double categorization, I think it will be more useful to our readers. If it's handled automatically, then we have the option at a future date to undo that, if we so choose. But in the past 15 years, we've not exactly had a wealth of dramatic works added to the project. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I also notice that for some plays, like Abraham (Roswitha, Lambert 1922), you have removed Category:Plays without placing it into any subcategories. All plays should at minimum be classified by form. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

IMO works which have several versions should have categories which apply to all versions placed on the versions page, e.g. Abraham (Hrotsvitha). —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 00:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

That's an opinion I disagree with, for multiple reasons. For one, it leaves many of our transcribed works without categorization by form or genre. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

So, if you're browsing Category:Elizabethan drama, you prefer to see every version of every Shakespeare play that we have? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 00:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Same for Greek tragedy, where I want to see the translations. And for Category:Plays, I want to see all the Plays, which is what we've been doing with base-level form categorization since I started here. You've unilaterally enacted a change to that without discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

OK. I find your preferences baffling, but that doesn't mean you're wrong, so I will take a step back, do some research, and consider next steps once I have a better understanding of common practice and how people want to use categories. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 00:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like there are two issues here.

1. The first issue is the question of what is a work that needs to be categorized. Help:Categorization has a straightforward answer: "The base page of every work in the main namespace should be placed in the basic categories which are outlined below." I find this actively detrimental to my browsing experience when works have multiple versions, but apparently some people like it, and in any case the policy is clear. I'll put a pin in this one until I have the bandwidth for a full-on policy discussion.
2. The second issue is the question of which categories are diffusing categories. I don't suppose we have an equivalent of Wikipedia:Categorization § Subcategorization which outlines the relevant principles?

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it is almost certainly time to reexamine our categorization practices and policy, and change it where needed, but if nothing else it would raise community awareness of the category system. For my own part I have mostly ignored it entirely (apart from technical categories), as, I suspect, many do. But our improved ability to automatically categorize some things combined with the recent inactivity of one of our most active manual categorizers probably changes some tradeoffs that it would be good to explore. Xover (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, no. AFAIK we have never laid out clear guidelines in written form for categorization. There is a lot of oral history. The root cause of most of our differences from Wikipedia categorization is that our system was developed to mimic what library catalogs such as the Library of Congress and Sears List of Subject Headings do, rather than classify articles into a nested hierarchy in the way a taxonomist would. And we have never had a separation of work classification from edition classification, just as the LoC does not. What the LoC does is tags individual items as Work or Instance, and that's displayed when you receive your search returns. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Some of what you're doing is a fundamental change to the way categorization at Wikisource has been done for more than a decade, and should be discussed before being implemented, as it is a major change to the way we've been doing things. Removing works from their base form categorization, in favor of date-form categorization is contrary to what I was taught when I started here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate ID's

Can you take a look into some of the big templates that are creating them, like Module:Author which is causing most Author pages to appear in the listings?.

Also any Transcluded work that has pages with the same id (such as "img" or "–" used for blank or un-numbered pages..) is appearing. Would it be possible to adjust the underlying Page number script to "force" a unique identifier for <pages> by appending the DJVUpage in the id? I.e you get "pagelistid$dvu-pageid" used instead of the current "pagelistid" anchors used. Whilst this will not solve all the Duplicate ID's it should reduce the 'noise' considerably... ?

Yes it would mean some links might have to be updated. But that would be less work than sifting therough the noise.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed Module:Author and a couple of other templates. I don't know of a good way to fix the issue automatically, but the duplicate IDs through {{pline}} and {{numbered para}} can be fixed by manually editing the ID.

Every page number already has an ID of the form "pageindex_filepagenum". The easy fix for duplicate IDs, which I could implement, would simply be to remove the outer ID that's just the page number display from MediaWiki:Proofreadpage pagenum template. However, as you note, this would require a lot of work looking for and updating links that use the old anchor system, and for that reason would also require more community discussion ahead of time.

The more elegant solution for duplicate page number IDs would be to add an ID parameter to the MW template, so that the ID could be specified separately from the page number, and then add the file page to the display page number only when necessary for disambiguation. This would have fewer backwards-compatibility problems, since there are going to be far fewer links anchoring on pages with non-unique names like "img". Getting this to work would require a deeper dive into the workings of the Proofread Page extension, and possibly a bug report, but I do think it would be a better result, so I'll look into the issue. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 06:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

An alternate (such as here [[1]] ) would be to use 'pagename_sectionname" as all relevant information is present in the pages tag.
Can you possibly do a mock up of what a Pages tags and page /Section/Lst magics do in Lua to allow for testing of new functionality like this) ( A Lua Module:PageCollate would also be useufl for things like building TOC on Index: pages where a Pages tag cannot currently be used)
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Giving the Proofread Page page generated page numbers (Pagenumber.JS as well as the extension IIRC) unique identifirer might also make it much easier to link to specific images or un-numbered pages in transclusions I think. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the Proofread Page extension already lets you link by the file page numbers—for example, Frank Leslie's Lady's Magazine/Volume 25/Number 3/My Mysterious Mademoiselle#182 and Frank Leslie's Lady's Magazine/Volume 25/Number 3/My Mysterious Mademoiselle#pageindex_156 point to the same place. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 06:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

:Template:Note

Can you convert {{ref}} and {{note}} over to a module and implement {{note-multi}}? I'm seeing a few instances in the duplicate ID's that would be helped by having a single note that can refer bck to multiple refs. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you link these instances so I know what we're dealing with? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Page:The Czechoslovak Review, vol3, 1919.djvu/171 Shared ref inside a table is one. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Done. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

cesura

I was reminder yesterday that {{cesura}} exists, and this template has not had its syntax updated in ages. It is a bit like {{gap}}, but is desinged for a very specific situation that occurs in formatting Old English poetry, two create a set-width gap in the middle of a poetic line.

The current syntax is very fussy, and the gap it creates depends upon the font style where it's used. See for example Beowulf (Wyatt)/Beowulf 34, where the gap is the correct size inside the font block, but if you copy the text to a Sandbox and remove the font block, the gap shrinks to almost nothing.

Do you think you could update the template so that (a) it is more consistent, and perhaps CSS customizable, so that if it isn't creating a gap of the correct width, a style applied to the work would correct the issue? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to work on making this template more consistent and CSS customizable! Could you elaborate on what you mean about the syntax being fussy? It seems pretty straightforward to me. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 18:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The size gap it produces is highly variable, depending on the surrounding syntax. If you test what I suggested, it should demonstrate the problem, though it might also be slightly browser dependent as well. One serious limitation is that, on works where this is used, it will be use a lot, once per line for the entire work. So it can push the limits on the number of template calls if it's too complex. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like I made a good call in not adding a width parameter to the template, then. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Notes again..

Note 17 here-
Page:Principles_for_creating_a_single_authoritative_list_of_the_world’s_species.pdf/1
I've put the common ref as ref0-display, but the general idea is that it should display like wikipedia footnotes do, number followed by a,b etc..

Can you tweak the module to handle this more cleanly?
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask why you're not just using normal footnotes? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 05:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

That is indeed a fair consideration. If you feel they should be converted feel free. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Links in links..

Special:LintErrors/wikilink-in-extlink

All seem to be in a single page, and apparently caused by a missing {{LangSwtich}} template here on English Wikisource. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@import

SF suggested I ask you this. I am just going to paste it:

<paste>All that chat recently about a shared stylesheet among the same project, I have been thinking about @import, which would allow adding to the stylesheet for individual indices (Index:'s).</paste>

So, in a bunch of volumes, there would be a style sheet at Index:Volume One.djvu/styles.css (or somewhere else, even) and this would be used via @import by the next volumes, which would allow for additional style per volume.

Really, the question is: if wikimedia allows @import?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I just tried adding @import url("https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:The_Black_Moth.pdf/styles.css"); to a stylesheet, and it didn't work, so looks like the answer is no. (Given the security issues, it makes sense.) If you want all volumes to have the same stylesheet, you can ask at WS:AN for the other volumes' index pages to be created as redirects, but if you want some shared styles and some volume-specific styles, I'm not sure there's a good solution available. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 15:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is something else that doesn't work @import url([[Index:Arabian Nights Entertainments (1728)/styles.css]]). Pity. Thanks for looking into it!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Paragraph number

I see you added an ID parameter to the template. I was thinking of making the added parameter some sort of prefix instead (after all, if you just wanted the ID you would use {{anchor+}} directly), what do you think? Arcorann (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

As long as you handle backwards-compatibility/checking old uses, I'm fine with whatever you want to do here! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 20:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I've written a few notes on the template talk page, would like your thoughts. Arcorann (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Works originally in Czech

Hello. I think that it is quite redundant categorise works into Category:Works originally in Czech if they are already in one of its subcategories, such as Category:Czech short stories or others. See e.g. The Vampire (Neruda). -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Sidenotes -

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Statutes_at_Large_(Ruffhead)/Volume_1/Crown_Debts_Act_1275
Can you make the sidenotes not overlap, without having to migrate too many templates? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Uksi/paragraph

This template is broken.. and it's to do with the whitespace handling.. I'm giving serious consideration to just deleting the whole thing and asking someone else to "start again" because it seems to be very tiresome to get it to be 'whitespace neutral' in any consistent manner. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Linter tracked syntax concerns...

Any chance you could take a look at clearing the remaining high priority Lints (with the exception of the duplicate ID's which is going to need a lot more investigation)? The bulk of the remaining edits seems to be Tidy Font bug in User Talk pages, and it's not's possible for a normal user to make corrective edits to those. {@Zinnober9: seemed to have cleared a lot of them, until I asked them to stop, as the edits had became contentious for some users. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

They aren't as high prority as Content namespace issues though, and through my efforts earlier in the year, most of Content (i.e Page:) lints are either unpaired formatting , or in respect of specfic work (which I was 'advised' not to attempt repairs on) unterminated <P> tags. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)