Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2010-02

Announcements

New copyright tags for posthumous works

As some countries and areas copyright posthumous works based on how many years after posthumous publication but not author's death, I have finally initiated Template:PD-posthumous with automated function to update how many years after posthumous publication, like from 50 to 60 to 70 years. I suggest using it to better categorize posthumous works, but it should not be used alone while I am not ready to combine it with other tags.--Jusjih (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

ru:Викитека:Вавилонский форум (the Babel Scriptorium)

ru.WS has started an English language discussion page to help foster collaboration on translations and other interwiki issues. If you have any questions or ideas for ru.WS put them there and local community members who speak English will be watching. --BirgitteSB 23:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposals

Move PD-manifesto works to Canadian Wikilivres?

After reading the Copyright Act of Canada more closely, I found that possibly copyrighted public speeches may have Canadian legal permission to post per Wikilivres:Template:Manifesto that I moved from Wikilivres:Template:PD-manifesto and rewrote, after discussing with Yann at Wikilivres:Wikilivres:Community_Portal/en#Canadian_copyright_protection_of_lectures. I would like to ask users here, especially my dear fellow administrators, if we should move {{PD-manifesto}} works to Canadian Wikilivres. I propose this as Wikisource:Possible copyright violations talks about 2009 Alaskan Governor Resignation Speech. Meanwhile, I also ask Chinese Wikisource users about a similar page move, as I consider allowing PD-manifesto on Wikisource possibly encouraging more abuses and endless arguments, therefore contrary to wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy about Free Content License.--Jusjih (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice find, that would free up just about all speeches, wouldn't it? I can get cracking on recent Canadian works...Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:David Livingstone.} 04:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Great news! I'm very glad if these are indeed acceptable at Wikilivres under Canadian law; it frees up the concerns that we have here of PD-Manifesto simply being applied willy-nilly to texts that are (usually clearly) not intended to be freely licensed, simply because we would like the text. Indeed, if we do recommend these texts go to Wikilivres, I think we should go through the non-speeches and assign them a license per-text, and remove {{PD-Manifesto}} completely. Jude (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps any Wikilivres administrator including myself can start importing PD-manifesto works to Canadian Wikilivres, then delete them here, possibly without further discussion, though courtesy messages to their contributors will be better, as IP edits on Wikilivres are severely restricted after excessive vandalism.--Jusjih (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, only dead fish ”go with the flow” ... Cygnis insignis (talk) with apologies to Sarah Palin, please don't sue me!

Does that mean you are against moving speeches hosted here, notably of dubious legality, to Wikilivres, where they would (apparently) be hosted without copyright issues? Jude (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Who put that notice at the top of the page? I think we should argue each case individually on its merits, rather than prejudging them all. For example we would have to give up the Dalai Lama's manifesto for one thing. ResScholar (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it would specifically cover speeches such as 2009 Alaskan Governor Resignation Speech that have been tagged as PD-Manifesto without any noticeable evidence of their being intended to be released in such a manner. The other non-speech works would (and shouldn't) be removed en masse: they need to individually be judged. Jude (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I posted on the top due to very serious copyright concern of the topic. I never intend to prejudge them all. Some speeches are not made so "publicly", so they do not even fit PD-manifesto right here. I agree Jude to individually judge relevant works. Only those clearly compatible with cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL should stay here, otherwise, Canadian Wikilivres if fitting Wikilivres:Template:Manifesto, or delete without exporting. These three choices are being applied on Chinese Wikisource as well. As the only administrator of both Chinese and English Wikisources, I now see PD-manifesto misleading too many contributors on both subdomains who could post clearly acceptable works.--Jusjih (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the copyright concerns, and had only recently decided to start going through the category and highlight texts which don't seem to be free. There are a lot of speeches on Wikisource that are of dubious freedom, and they all need to be investigated sooner, rather than later. Jude (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. FWIW... The Palin Resignation Speech was published on the official Alaska state .GOV site at some point prior to or soon after the event taking place, so I can't understand why it would not be covered as any other publication is covered that can typically be found for public inspection on any of the 50 state's official sites. George Orwell III (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion regarding its copyright state at WS:COPYVIO, which would be a better place for your comments. Regardless, as pointed out by Prosfilaes, states can and frequently do claim copyright on works. Just because something is freely available on their website does not make it free and useable on Wikisource. Jude (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure each state will look at things differently, and I believe that it was not that long ago that Oregon gave up enforcing protection of this sort.Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Not be a lawyer I say lets Keep It Simple if a Copyright is automatically granted upon creation unless disclaimer by the Author or the law make it public domain then {{PD-manifesto}} is no good because copyright is assumed. If a work is under copyright it under copyright no matter how many people say it is in Public Domain. There are maters internal to wikisource like Notability then there are maters external to wikisource like copyright. I say let play safe and do not have {{PD-manifesto}} or better yet let a Lawyer do what Lawyers good for keep Wikisource out HOT WATER with to external world, By giving us good info and sometimes making the call.--Lookatthis (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's any danger of you being mistaken for a lawyer. ResScholar (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • While copyright is indeed a "Matter external", WMF sites have typically taken a more restrictive interpretation of copyright law than would be demanded by the law alone. If determining whether something is under copyright or in the public domain were so straightforward we would not be having this discussion. There is a very wide gap between what is clearly in one camp or the other. No lawyer can give a definitive answer that will safely apply in all circumstances. The effective ones are able to argue either side of a case, and win. "Playing safe" is too often a loser's strategy.Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • WMF can "have more restrictive interpretation of copyright law than would be demanded by the law alone" determining the copyright status is not straightforward That is why I now think we should let someone like an administrator who read lot more copyright law me make the call.--Lookatthis (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

      The connection between being an administrator and experience in reading copyright law is a non sequitur. Anyone who has been here for several years is familiar with these laws, and a multiplicity of opinions persist. The call should certainly not be in the hands of a single administrator who has his own strong POV about copyright law. That would be an abandonment of community responsibility. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

    • The question is whether playing it safe is a good strategy depends on how important pushing the limits is. Furthermore, we're making this available as Free Content, for people who may be forced to fold when a serious copyright complaint comes up, which is a good reason to play it safe.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

      There is nothing wrong with folding when a serious copyright complaint comes up, and the situation is re-valued on its own merits, but neither is there anything wrong with defending against that complaint if that same re-valuation shows that defence is warranted. To make playing safe depend on the importance of pushing limits makes no sense at all. Nobody is proposing pushing any limits on this site. Playing safe is a kind of negative limit. Between the safe negative limit and the foolhardy positive limit there is a very wide range of options. Rather than retreating behind a doctrinnaire interpretation of Free Content, we would be further ahead by not being so risk averse. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

      • Anyone can "pushing the limits" on their own webpage I am not recommending that, Wikisource needs clear limits.--Lookatthis (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't read Section 32.2 of the Canadian Copyright Act the way most seem to be doing. It protects "reports" ("comptes rendus" in the French version of the law). How does a report equate to a complete text? I still think that both projects should take a liberal view toward manifesti, but 32.2 alone is not a reliable authority for such action. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikilivres would be free to claim under Sections 29-29.2 which suggest that the purposes of "research or private study" allow full reproduction under Fair Dealing. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din.} 20:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Although there are some notable differences Canadian fair dealing and US fair use are remarkably convergent. If the lecture provision is not applicable, and we must depend on fair dealing, we are no further ahead than if we relied on fair use. I am concerned that this proposal may be nothing more than passing the buck to the Canadian legal system. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a misconception: fair dealing does not allow full reproduction, and is in fact explicitly prohibited on Wikisource. (Even if this were not a problem, fair dealing would not confer any of the other rights required by Wikisource.) --Piet Delport (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Actual manifestos, perhaps. Tagging a speech as a manifesto "just because I want it on Wikisource" is the sort of thing that will cause legal issues for the foundation. We cannot take a liberal view towards manifestos, and we shouldn't take a liberal view to manifestos because the {{PD-Manifesto}} template, as far as I understand, has absolutely no legal backing whatsoever. Jude (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that is right--Lookatthis (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The view that "manifesti" will cause legal issues for the foundation is speculation and urban legend as credible as the belief that the sewers of New York City are full of alligators. I can't say that I like the term "manifesto", and I do have concerns about its imprecision and lack of clear legal backing. Maybe the place to start is with a clear definition of what we mean with that word. This is not a simple question of "wanting it on Wikisource." Copyright law does not exist in a vacuum, and needs to be balanced by other considerations, such as the public interest. Copyright in common law countries is historically an economic right; this is also reflected in the fair use factor about the effect on a work's market. Works that could receive the "manifesto" label are largely political in nature — a politician of the day speaking on a current issue. Is it in the public interest to have a politician's words so tied in copyright knots that the transparency required for accountability is thereby so severely hampered. There is an element of irony in the notion that Sarah Palin would need to depend on a freer Canadian law to have her words properly reported. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't appreciate my concerns being compared to urban legends. If we're going to go down the route of name calling and rude comments, then I think this discussion is a moot. Jude (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you can confuse a statement that something is an urban legend with a comparison. There was in fact neither name calling nor rude comments. Lighten up! Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The loopholes for "public interest" in copyright law are called fair use. If Palin challenged the use of her speech as part of a manifesto from an extreme right-wing group on copyright grounds, she'd probably win; thus the speech isn't public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "loopholes", nor is the discussion advanced by attempting to conflate public interest with fair use. Neither does the applicability of fair use or public interest imply public domain. Who's arguing that? A document whose publication is in the public interest may or may not pass the fair use tests. Public interest in the present context is about the right of the public to be correctly informed about the pronouncements of major political figures, free of political spin. This allows the public to make informed decisions. It is conceivable that this could apply to some other speakers, but I'm not yet ready to make a case for them. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In the US copyright law, public interest reuse falls under fair use. There's no right to quote in full the text of major political figures; if we want information about The Audacity of Hope, we have to provide a non-derivative summary and explanation, not the text of the book.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Where in the Copyright Act does it mention Public interest? But if people are going to fall for your conflation there's not much that can be done about it. And why bring up The Audacity of Hope as a straw man? We were talking about speeches; books were never a part of the discussion before this. If there is no right to accurately report political speeches how can anyone be sure that "a non-derivative summary and explanation" is accurate? Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't mention public interest in the copyright act, where are you getting your legal justification to do this? Why is reproducing polished bits of propaganda exactly more important than reproducing books and reports? There's a lot of things you have no right to exactly copy; we know that non-derivative summaries and explanations are accurate because of our trust in the source, and if we have concerns, we compare several sources. And again; Free content, not we can post it. There's lots of folding, spindling and mutilating that Free content demands that aren't in the public interest.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Definitely no go

Eclecticology is right: what 32.2 allows is to "make or publish, for the purposes of news reporting or news summary, a report of a lecture given in public, or an address of a political nature given at a public meeting", which

• does not equate the complete text, and
• does not permit the other rights also required by Wikisource's free content definition, beyond just publication (that is, modification and exploitation by anyone, in any form, and for any purpose)

It certainly does not make the work public domain, as the use of a PD-* template would suggest. --Piet Delport (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In which case, we need to consider each and every work that is currently tagged PD-Manifesto. I have already said before that I believe each work with this tag should have a detailed rationale. Those for which a detailed rationale cannot be provided should be deleted. Jude (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource requires cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL, so reproducing the entire copyright-restricted work to claim "fair" use is impractical and thus forbidden, but Wikilivres just requires any permission to post in Canada, even if non-commercial and non-derivative. Most speeches and manifestos are unlikely getting Wikipedia articles, so perhaps making or publishing for the purposes of news reporting or news summary is possible with a short introduction in the Wikilivres header, maybe combined with Canadian fair dealing while the activities of Wikilivres are strictly non-commercial while not promising that downstream users may commercially copy everything. US fair use and Canadian fair dealing have no clear boundaries with copyright infringement http://en.wikisource.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.pngregarding how much may be legally quoted. To clear this matter, we should review the Copyright Act of Canada carefully. Even if moving PD-manifesto works to Canadian Wikilivres is not feasible, many can be found on the web.--Jusjih (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, each and every work should be considered individually. "PD-Manifesto" is a problematic term. I would prefer a "w:Public interest" category, though I am aware of the vulnerability of that term to abuse. This would primarily refer to certain political speeches. Most people who make such speeches do so in the moment without any consideration of copyright, and they only receive it because of the broad automatic operation of the law. A detailed rationale would have the same effect, but if, for example, we considered replies to a State of the Union message it should not be necessary to go into detail for each of these. A single rationale for a class of speeches should suffice. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should copy the speeches there, not move it. The latter would (presumably) mean deleting the speeches from Wikisource, which I don't think is necessary. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource doesn't discuss what Wikilivres does; if they or anyone else wants to copy the speeches, they are free to do so. But Wikilivres says "You are welcome to publish texts here if they cannot be accepted in Wikisource. Texts that can be accepted in Wikisource should be published there." So the discussion here is getting rid of a mess of content that's questionably Free content at best.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To respond to Ixfd64, Wikilivres never wants to duplicate anything acceptable here. As PD-manifesto is merely the presumed but not necessarily confirmed public domain, it is not really acceptable. M. L King, Jr's "I Have a Dream" is rejected here due to confirmed case law with no evidence of licensing compatible with GFDL and CC. Tagging {{PD-manifesto}} deprecated, I may want to start clearing the 100+ pages through WS:COPYVIO to discuss whether to keep them here (with compatible license), move to Wikilivres, or delete without move.--Jusjih (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I just started a subsection at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Works_tagged_PD-manifesto, but I prefer to list involved 100+ works in a special subpage if no one objects.--Jusjih (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Special_discussion_for_pages_tagged_as_PD-manifesto to be more specific.

I don't know what's been going on here, but public speech and manifestos intended for the public are inherently without copyright, at least in the U.S. So can we fix the template now? -- Kendrick7 (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have cite for that? For one counterexample, courts have ruled that Martin Luther King's I have a dream speech was not inherently without copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Pardon. Would you mind pointing to THAT ruling if at all possible when you get the chance. TIA.

... and fwiw, I think the poster may be refering to points discussed in the 'Inclusion Question' sub-section somewhere below George Orwell III (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Golan v. Gonzalez

Moved here from Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Golan_v._Gonzalez:--Jusjih (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Please familiarize yourself with this case and its related cases. I researched this case when Yann mentioned that URAA Restorations would not be sustained. To me Golan v. Holder seems to say that if a work produced in a country foreign to the United States was in the public domain in the United States prior to 1994 (for example because copyright registration or renewal was not complied with) which is when the United States URAA Restoration acts were passed, it stays in the U.S. public domain. Does anyone else read this differently? ResScholar (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The last page of the Judge's decision in Golan v. Holder[1] says "Accordingly—to the extent Section 514 suppresses the right of reliance parties to use works they exploited while the works were in the public domain—Section 514 is substantially broader than necessary to achieve the Government’s interest."

[2] seems like a helpful and hopefully accurate summary. In particular, this paragraph seems to say the question on whether we are free to upload these works, even in the Tenth Circuit, is still up in the air, as we're not a reliance party.

The second significant issue will be whether the statute should be invalidated on its face as overbroad, or whether it should be invalidated only as applied. If the statute is invalidated on its face, that would allow these plaintiffs to use ANY work of foreign origin that is in the public domain, whether or not they had relied on its public domain status. Indeed, unless and until Congress acted to fix the statute, even non-reliance parties could use works of foreign origin in the public domain. If the statute is invalidated only as applied, that would allow these plaintiffs to use only those works that they were in fact using prior to the restoration, which would be a much narrower decision. In either case, because collateral estoppel does not apply to the government, a decision by the Tenth Circuit would be binding only on the parties and others within the Tenth Circuit; it would not be binding outside the Tenth Circuit. Parties in other circuits could still sued (or prosecuted) for infringing works of foreign origin that were in the public domain prior to restoration.

As for whether we could be considered reliance parties:

Congress would almost surely try to enact some version of copyright restoration again. Remember, the plaintiffs conceded that Article 18 of the Berne Convention requires some type of restoration. [...] There also would be the question of whether a new statute would apply only to parties that relied on the public domain status of a work before its INITIAL restoration (on January 1, 1996), or whether a new statute would also have to protect parties that relied on the public domain status of a work after that date, but before the effective date of the new legislation. If Congress is required to start anew, a party who is considering utilizing a work of foreign origin that is in the public domain for failure to comply with formalities might be well advised to begin using such a work right away, in order to ensure its continued right to use such a work after the next restoration.

(And, yes, that's all fair use material, not GFDL or CC.) So we don't know whether Section 514 of The URAA has been overturned or not--I think the question of whether the court is going to void it in whole or consider it invalid in certain cases, not including us, is still up in the air--, we do know that the case is going to be appealed and that it's not yet been ruled on in a court binding on us, and we pretty much know that Congress is going to pass a new law with the same effect on us if this case survives on appeal and that it or may not require us to remove all the texts we uploaded.

Given all that, I don't see us as justified in uploading works not covered by the URAA, even if there is a narrow chance that we might get to keep them after all is said and done.

I'd also like to point out that the ramifications of ignoring the URAA are much different here from the Commons. The vast majority of non-American works published prior to 1989 would be fair game. Everything written in India in the 1980s would be acceptable. I've seen people storm out of w:Distributed Proofreaders because we were doing pre-1923 Finnish works by an author who died a mere 50 years ago; how many people are we going to alienate by accepting works by living authors made in the 1980s?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your last paragraph: why is it different here than in Commons? Indian law is 60 years pma, so I also don't understand your reference to works from the 1980s. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Because Commons requires that it be in the public domain in its home country, whereas en.Wikisource has only required that it be in the public domain in the US. Hence the vast majority of works worldwide published prior to 1989 would be in the public domain save the URAA, regardless of its copyright at its home nation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not so sure. At least for European works, I don't think there is a significative difference of quantity: only works of authors who died between 1926 and 1938 are concerned by URAA. While there are some European works which are public domain in USA but not in Europe because there were published before 1923, but the authors died after 1938. Yann (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No; if a work published prior to 1989 wasn't registered for copyright in the US, it was in the public domain in the US. For legal reasons, the Copyright Office has lists of works that were in the public domain that the copyright holder now wants to express legal ownership of[3]; this list includes "Keiji monogatari 3 shiosai no uta", i.e. a 1983 movie, and this list includes the more literary Bambi, written by Austrian Felix Salten, died 1945.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Prosfilaes, for sifting through the case and its commentary and sharing your learned understanding of this new wrinkle in copyright law. ResScholar (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The URAA copyright restoration since 1996 did not accept the rule of the shorter term. I wonder if any appeal has been filed. I expect the US Congress to try a constitutional amendment to support any new copyright restoration on foreign works once published without complying with US formalities. This court case would not affect foreign works published while complying with all US formalities, in which case they would never lapse US copyright while the rule of the shorter term does not apply. In case of any doubts in the USA, Canadian Wikilivres can host most works that may be under URAA copyright restoration.--Jusjih (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Will the following statement in a new copyright tag be fine?

"This work once lapsed its copyright in the USA for failure to comply with the US formalities. Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act restored the lapsed copyright but was declared violating the First Amendment of the US Constitution pursuant to Golan v. Holder where Judge Babcock of the US District Court for the District of Colorado ruled on April 3, 2009 in the conclusion: "Congress has a legitimate interest in complying with the terms of the Berne Convention. The Berne Convention, however, affords each member nation discretion to restore the copyrights of foreign authors in a manner consistent with that member nation’s own body of copyright law. In the United States, that body of law includes the bedrock principle that works in the public domain remain in the public domain. ......"

I would like to request comments before starting a new copyright tag coded "PD-2009". I would also like to ask whether those still copyrighted at home should be excluded or included here. Based on the ruling, the American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term may cease to apply to foreign works published without complying with US copyright formalities, i.e. published through 1963 with no renewal, through 1977 with no notice, or before March 1, 1989 with no notice and no registration within 5 years. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. as a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is not legally binding, and so would Golan v. Holder. The matter depends on whether there are any appeals filed.--Jusjih (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that all appeals have been exhausted in Golan v. Holder, and I'm just not comfortable playing around with it. One big difference between Corel and Golan is that the ink has dried on Corel, and it's been cited in other cases outside its circuit.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure govern any appeals. Likewise, Wikimedia Commons community considers files tagged commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA too early to be considered fully acceptable in the USA, without mass deletion there yet. We should also discuss what to do with similar works without US licenses here, while many of them are acceptable on Canadian Wikilivres:. Moving texts is much easier than moving files like images.--Jusjih (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As we are not fully comfortable that Golan v. Holder has been sufficiently "finalized", I just made Template:Not-PD-US-URAA based on and simplified from commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA. Please edit it as needed. Most works under this tag may be sent to Canadian Wikilivres when erring on the side of caution. I look forward to hearing Judge Babcock's ruling becoming more "finalized" like Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. before renaming the tag to something like "PD-2009", parallel to PD-1996, while I am proud of renaming Template:CWMG-copyright to Template:PD-India-CWMG to celebrate the 2009 New Year.--Jusjih (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

{{PD-USGov}} and collapsible pages

When reading w:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government, I see that the USA can still hold the copyright of works covered by {{PD-USGov}} in other countries (if allowed there). As we did not yet have Template:HideH or Template:HideF for collapsible pages as in English Wikipedia or Chinese Wikisource until now, I tried in good faith to edit {{PD-USGov}} when involved works may also be in PD outside the USA, or the USA can still hold the copyright abroad, while thinking globally like in {{PD-old-50-1923}} and {{PD-old-70-1996}}. However, Clindberg made massive reversion while being USA-centric, contrary to m:Mission about "around the world". As I seek third-party opinion about my involved dispute, I am also bringing Template:HideH and Template:HideF for collapsible pages for certain purposes:

1. If my edited version makes the tag too large, putting the copyright status outside the USA within HideH and HideF will allow readers to see or hide them.
2. Some works hosted here are PD in the USA but still copyright-restricted at home without license compatible with cc-by-sa-3.0. Using collapsible pages to enclosed texts still copyrighted at home with warning statements outside will better protect some users from unintentionally violating others' copyright at home. Chinese Wikisource article zh:論動體的電動力學 translated from "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (original German in 1905 by Albert Einstein who died in 1955) uses collapsible page. Even though already in PD in China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan (all 50 pma), it is still being copyright-restricted at home in Germany (70 pma), so any users in Singapore (also 70 pma copyright where Chinese is one of the four official languages) are also restricted, thus warranting collapsible page to protect Singaporean users. Some PD-old-50-1923 pages may warrant collapsible pages because our Pd/1923 tags do not tell whether the works are PD at home.

After all, my thought is to be bold but not reckless.--Jusjih (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

While testing Template:HideH or Template:HideF at On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (1920 edition) without saving the change, I cannot hide anything. Maybe something is missing so they do not work as in English Wikipedia. Hopefully someone can debug.--Jusjih (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions

Google Books

Google's project to scan 40 million books and what it may eventually mean to users like us is the subject of an interesting PBS Newshour piece. See Google's Goal: Digitize Every Book Ever Printed. Moondyne (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Music

Is there a WikiProject for music here? I'm trying to figure out the best way to add musical illustrations to old texts about music. I don't mean audio files. I mean images in musical notation. Thanks. Rigaudon (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, there isn't Wikisource:WikiProject, though we do have the inactive Wikisource:Song of the Day. We do have a number of works with music, and our last Proofread was Handel and it had excerpts for which we did screen captures and uploaded the works to attach to File:Romain Rolland Handel.djvu. We were looking to explore music notation extension however no one had the combination of time/experience/willingness to progress the matter.

So, I suppose that for the moment the answer is to screen capture (I use FireShot Mozilla extension), upload to Commons (presuming original file is there) using the Derivatives tool, and link them in as File:s. When doing this, I usually build a page with the links at Commons, current example is Commons:Highways and Byways in Sussex billinghurst (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What about Wikisource:Sheet music? Or oldwikisource:Category:Musical scores? -Aleator (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been at some talk about a music wiki extension to display sheet music and play the sounds, but unfortunately it has languished. (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=189). --Eliyak T·C 01:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference to bibliography

Newbie question: is there an example of how to link to a bibliography? Like the small numbers at the end of sections in Page:A Compendium of Irish Biography.djvu/123. Thank you. Wknight94 (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

First you need to decide on the structure you're going to tranclude these pages into. Assuming the root title will be A Compendium of Irish Biography and the bibliography will be located at subpage A Compendium of Irish Biography/Bibliography, then you should probably link them something like

[[A Compendium of Irish Biography/Bibliography#68|68]]

For an example, see Page:Makers of British botany.djvu/390, part of Makers of British botany/Index.

Hesperian 03:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things.

• I did a tidy and sort of the work, and it is missing pages, see Index:A Compendium of Irish Biography.djvu. We may be better of getting a fresh copy of the file before we progress further. There is an alternate copy available via http://www.archive.org/details/compendiumofiris00webb
• We have the template {{TOC link}} that would manage the linking to pages. However, one wonders with a little work, we would place anchors to each link and do it is a little more specific linking.

billinghurst (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: My gut feel is that as the work is incomplete, and we have identified it early that the easiest alternative is to reload at Commons, and to ditch the beast with the exception of the few pages that we have proofread/validated which we can just move. Happy to do the mechanics at WS, however, would prefer someone with more bandwidth downloaded and uploaded the alternative file. billinghurst (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Downloading it ... slowly Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded, replacing the old file. Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year and best wishes to all in the coming year. — Ineuw (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ineuw, and for you too! --Zyephyrus (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Translations of Republished Ancient Works?

I am getting a book of works in Latin dating back to the 5th century. The book itself is a printing of manuscripts that were collected by a scholar recently and published in their original language. I intend to translate them into English for my own use. Now I know that the Latin itself is copyrighted and cannot be placed in the public domain. But what about my translation of them? Would these be in the public domain, if I chose? Also, if they are in the public domain, are they wikisource material? I know that wikisource does not permit self-publishing, but this is just a translation, so it seems to be a sort of grey area?Mad2Physicist (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What year were they published? Check the year against http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm and if Latin versions are out of copyright, they belong at la:. Either way, if they are your translations then you will own the copyright to your own translations (your intellectual property), and, if you wish to contribute that to enWS, then please choose the appropriate tag at Help:Copyright tags to allow us to house them. Also see Wikisource:Translations. billinghurst (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the original manuscripts are obviously not copyrighted, but the publication/typesetting that I am getting of them was done in 1981 or so, I believe. So the originals are not copyrighted, and if I were to go and get the originals I could put them on la:, but I don't have access to the original manuscripts. But you say that if I translate them from the new typesetting, then that translation is my intellectual property? Thanks.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't any transliteration you create either PD or your own work alone? I'm assuming you drop the material added by the 1981 edition, of course. You can republish PD sources any way you see fit, that's the whole idea. Paradoctor (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is what I was wondering. I would of course not include any commentary made by the scholar, just a translation of the original stuff. But, as mentioned below, the scholar did use several different manuscripts to put together this typesetting...Mad2Physicist (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Kinda hard to say anything without knowing how much remixing has been done. Assuming the author was sufficiently detailed with sourcing, you can transliterate the different manuscripts separately, that should work in all cases. Failing that, just ask. If the author is anything like me, there should already be a set of such transliterations in electronic form, maybe s/he is inclined to share? Paradoctor (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You maybe meant translate? Anyway I think the scholar who did the work is dead, or I would just ask him (the works in question which I intend to translate are Pelagius' Expositions on the Pauline Epistles, a critical edition of which is available by Alexander Souter, and of which the first was translated by De Bruyn but that is copyrighted from 1993 and I think he only did one).Mad2Physicist (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"transliterate": That's what I get for checking terminology before I write. ;) No, the last sentence before my previous reply stated that the translation matter was resolved for you. I was referring to your wish to make the original latin texts available. Paradoctor (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think I can do that legally, as I think that would be copyrighted, but to be honest, I am a little unsure of that as well.Mad2Physicist (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Both the text and layout of the original manuscript are in the public domain, so you are free to post the text at the Latin Wikisource; and you would be free to post page scans of the manuscripts if you had access, which you don't. To the extent that the text of the 1981 publication is identical to that of the original manuscript, the 1981 text is also in the public domain; but beware of annotations, orthographic changes, etcetera. The typesetting of the 1981 publication is, as you say, copyrighted, so you don't have the right to post page scans. Your translation of the text is your intellectual property. If the text is in the public domain, then the translation is solely your intellectual property; if it is not, then your translation is shared intellectual property. In the former case, you are permitted, and very welcome, to release your translation under a suitable license, and post it here. Hesperian 08:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Right - here is the other concern. These works are available only in something like three manuscripts or families of manuscripts that have been found which all subtly differ from one another. So I am hoping that this edition (which is still in the mail to me at this time, I just thought I would ask about the copyrighting now anyway) clearly marks which manuscript has which sections so that I could do a public-domain translation (either by following one manuscript or by marking variants). I would of course love to get ahold of the originals but that is unlikely to ever happen, sadly, unless I ever meet someone with better connections than mine! I doubt that my own requests to see the originals would be heeded.Mad2Physicist (talk) 09:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

We have plenty of works for which we wish the provenance was better, or clearer. If the provenance of individual sections is not as clear as you would like, but you're still willing to go to the trouble of translating them, we're still happy to host them. Hesperian 11:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well I am going to translate them anyway for my own use, so, when I get that done, I will post them and if anyone finds a problem then they can always be removed. I don't think it will be an issue, however. It looks to me like it is "very likely" that the translation would be my intellectual property. Thanks for the advice.Mad2Physicist (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me try and weigh in with my understanding of US copyright law. While in theory the US copyright on unregistered, uncopyrighted texts was eternal, I've never seen it applied to pre-modern texts, and the copyright wouldn't be the property of the university, though the "I own it" copyright claim was, is, and will continue to be made. There's no copyright on typesetting, nor I believe on orthographic changes. Critical editions are a bit more confusing; to the extent that creative choices are used in choosing between pieces of different manuscripts, it's probably copyrightable. I've never heard of translators licensing the critical text before, so despite what the uberpedantic part of my head says, it's probably best to just translate it and not worry about it. (I'd like to say that you should talk to the author, and between scholars it shouldn't be a big deal, but publishers can get real huffy.) Oh, and Paradoctor, there's a big difference between transliteration (changing alphabets on a letter by letter basis) and translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My English is bad, but not that bad! ^_^ We were talking about republishing the Latin text, not about the translation. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was talking about publishing my own translation of the Latin text, although I could possibly type up the Latin as well if it were allowed and people were interested.Mad2Physicist (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be transcription, unless we're using Cyrillic on la.WS now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"transcription, which is a rendition of a word in a given script, based on the word's sound rather than as a process of converting of one script into another", Transcription shares this view. Paradoctor (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm? Transcription says that transcription "can also mean the conversion of a written source into another medium, as by scanning books and making digital versions."--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but how does that contradict the idea that producing an electronic version of a Latin manuscript is a transliteration process? This almost feels like the vis viva controversy. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Transliteration doesn't mean that; look it up.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I did, why do you think I linked the articles in the first place? OED agrees, do you have any sources that contradict them? Latin manu-script to unicode, what could be clearer? A puzzled Paradoctor (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not the OED, and it says the exact same thing Wikipedia does, only terser and less clear. Neither manuscripts nor Unicode are alphabets. Looking Google Books, Zupitza uses it in the sense you are in the 19th century, but the rest of the usages are clearly writing Russian or Arabic or Egyptian words in Latin characters.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

OED: Ouch! Right between the eyes! Thankfully, the other instances of this fail are buried in my edit history. ^_^

As for "other usages", I still don't see how the existence of alternate meanings invalidates the meaning used. By that line of reasoning, you would have to drop all ambiguous terms from the language.

Unicode is not an alphabet? I'll give you that if you promise to ponder an innocuous puzzle: What are the itty-bitty patterns of magnetic domains on my hard disk? Paradoctor (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

When I say that there's no copyright on typesetting, we couldn't use scans with the footnotes, nor could we use scans with critical text on them, but any scans that just had the original text from the manuscript (plus simple headers, page numbers, line numbers) could be uploaded, at least in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"There's no copyright on typesetting." I did not know that, Prosfilaes; thankyou. In hindsight it makes sense, since copyright protects creativitity, and modern day typesetting has been robbed of creativity by a combination of automation and convention. But as with all things, there must be exceptions. Hesperian 05:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense, it is really just a question of getting at the 'original' form of the manuscripts and not making use of the scholarly monkeying about (since there's several variants involved).Mad2Physicist (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a copyright on typesetting in the UK, from 25 years from the date published. See commons:Commons:Licensing#Typographical_copyright. So if you're dealing with a UK book, or are based in the UK, then you need to take this into account too. There is also a database right, which lasts for 15 years (or for works from 1982-1997, until 2012). Neither of these would affect a book published in 1981, though - which should be clearly in the public domain if it just reproduces pre-existing works in the public domain. Mike Peel (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the UK and some other countries. But if you're in the US, the typographic or database copyright on British works isn't legally binding.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

New Public Domain texts

From 1 January 2010, some more texts have become public domain and therefore are eligible for uploading here. We at Wikimedia UK have done some media work on this and would appreciate hearing any examples you have uploaded of work that became public domain on 1 Jan. Please post a comment on our blog at http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/ Thanks! AndrewRT (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The only works that have become public domain for our purposes, under US law, are works not published until 2002. That's not a very big set of books, unlike elsewhere in the world.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Gah! [4] [5]--BirgitteSB 20:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why the "Gah"? Mike Peel (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it is misleading. The body of work by authors who died in 1939 are not acceptable here as public domain. Their pre-1923 works have always been acceptable here and there post-1923 are still not acceptable here; nothing significant has changed. The article implies that everything that just became PD in the EU is now acceptable to upload here and that is not true.--BirgitteSB 16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

High time that WMF puts up a few servers outside of the US. Paradoctor (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the telegraph article got a bit carried away, although that is probably somewhat our fault. See the original press release for what we said in the first place. Anyhow, doesn't the rule of the shorter term apply? Also, users in the UK (and all works with authors from the UK?) will have to obey both UK and US copyright law when uploading - so before the 1st e.g. I could not upload any Yeats, but now I can (and have). Mike Peel (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the rule of shorter term does not apply in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This would be a good time to point out that for the past four years I have campaigned on the idea we should allow works which are PD in either their home country or the United States. Daily Telegraph agrees with me :) Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle.} 18:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The law is what the law is. As long as we're going to ignore our requirements under the law, I'd like to use the publication + 40 rules that Jim Baen pushed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I just want to point out that English Wikisource is not the only Wikisource. When the news articles say that the complete works of Sigmund Freud can now be made available at Wikisource, they're right: Freud wrote in German, and his works are now eligible to be included at German Wikisource, where 70 years p.m.a. is the only criterion. Angr 13:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

When the news articles in question are English language news articles which can only be seen as accurate regarding non-English Wikisources, I still find it misleading. Frankly the issue seems to me to be that Wikimedia UK passed out incomplete information and announced it here after the information was already released. We at Wikimedia UK have done some media work note the past tense. Which resulted in their understanding being corrected too late to be very useful. I don't think the issue was that Wikimedia UK really meant to be telling people about what is acceptable at the German Wikisource. Especially as they placed the notice here.--BirgitteSB 14:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

We tried to be as open as we could be during this - the press release was on the wiki for some time, and was not actually started by WMUK's board but by volunteers, see the history of wmuk:Press releases/Public domain day. It was widely discussed on our mailing list, and it was mentioned here a few times (see above). It would have been better to have advertised it more widely, I admit. Anyhow, lessons learnt: let's make sure that future things like this happen more smoothly.

BTW, if the German wikisource only requires death+70, not accounting for US law, why does the English one use US law only? I can't see the logic there... I thought that US law was required as the servers are hosted in the US? Mike Peel (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because the vast majority of German Wikisource's contributors, readers, and anyone who would want to reuse its content, live in the EU (or Switzerland or Liechtenstein, which have the same rules), which isn't true of English Wikisource. Angr 10:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I understood that the servers were located in Germany. Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's just the toolserver, which isn't actually a Wikimedia asset; it is run by the German chapter. My understanding is that all Wikimedia servers are located in the US; therefore whatever Wikimedia serves is subject to US copyright law; therefore no Wikisource should be hosting materials that are protected by copyright in the US. Hesperian 13:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Whichever way it was perceived, as a marketing move, it seems to have worked a wonder. There have been many new users at the site since the newspaper articles, and many bringing new contributions. All eager to learn and contribute. So CONGRATULATIONS to Mike and Andrew on that.

However, it is to the point, that it would be excellent if there more people who could spend the time to add {{welcome}} (logged in users) or {{subst:welcomeip}} (IP addresses) and to help patrol Special:RecentChanges offering some gentle advice and applying some gentle fixes. billinghurst (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If the techies add Friendly to Gadgets, I use it on en.Wikpedia every time I come across a new arrival. Paradoctor (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a partial technoid, and will see whether it can come in "as is" or whether it is going to need big configuration. There is usually some layer of configuration, and it will depend on whether it is coded completely for WP, or whether we can insert our underlying aspects. But later. billinghurst (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive the intrusion. I'm going to write a detailed post on it.Wikisource to point out the current copyright/PD conditions. On it.source we have the following problem:

• As long as we upload Italian texts, we have to comply with Italian law about their copyright,
• and, as long as servers are located in the USA, we have to comply with USA laws about copyright

Obviously when these laws clash we have to obey the hardest :)

So, as far as USA Law is concerned, how safely can I cite Help:Public Domain on my post? Thanks for your kind attention. - εΔω 11:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Genealogy?

Project scope question... What is the consensus about including old genealogy literature here? There are zillions (approximately) of old books about family history available. Just curious. Thanks. Wknight94 (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely it's the same as anything else: if they've previously been published and are not protected by copyright, they can be included, can't they? Angr 22:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course. It'd be great to have some genealogy works on here. So long as they meet the requirements Angr mentioned, they won't run amiss of any policy.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 23:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Biggest problem will be the family trees as they don't wiki well, and we will probably need to have images of them. (To me, our existing templates are ugly) My solution to maximise the usefulness of that would be to put a list of names onto the talk page of the sheet, and we can probably transclude it somewhere useful, even if it is the corresponding talk page in main ns. Alternatively, I could see that we could look to use the Portal: namespace for such a venture. billinghurst (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a kit at wikipedia, w:Template:Clade, that could perhaps be adapted for this purpose. Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

They are alright for showing a straight descendency, or an ancestry, however, no good for family trees which have multiple branching at a generation. This was a specific issue even for genealogy programs, so I see the solution as someone copy the image, or generate a new image in a software program, which, while having modern benefits, would never replicate the image as is. billinghurst (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you link an example? I'm curious, never a good sign. Paradoctor (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The clade template is mostly used for phylogenetic trees of organisms, such as that at w:Carnivora#Phylogenetic tree, and also for languages. Most geanological uses are for royal families, so as Billinghurst pointed out, they are no good for family trees which have multiple branching at a generation. I think there is some appropriate template, rarely used at Wikipedia. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The template is w:Template:Familytree, which can generate both vertical and horizontal trees. --Eliyak T·C 23:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Template:Familytree is also located here at wikisource.--Xxagile (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

LDS films

On an aligned point, I am wondering whether people know about the Latter Day Saints and their library collection Family History Library Catalog. Well they now have an online film ordering service so you can order in your film to your nearest centre. Go armed with your digital film scanner and I think that we are in business. billinghurst (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Proofread page help

I'm working on the Hymn to Dionysus and I'm confused by the documentation. It says "Section transclusion is possible for the first and last page: <pages index="foo.djvu" from=100 to=200 fromsection=section2 tosection=section1 />. ", which is great, but I have no clue what section2 and section1 is, and whether I can drop just one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you're only doing full pages, then you can drop the section parameters (see The Passenger Pigeon/Chapter X). Sections are for when you want to include partial pages (see Ambrosius Aurelianus (DNB00)). That's my newbie understanding anyway... Wknight94 (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, next question, how do I get the spurious paragraph break to go away? Does it have anything to do with the fact I'm using pages not in order?

Should be fixed now. Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Now it is :P 19:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(Q&D guide for those passing) Wrap and name the two sections of text, at the the first and last pages, with these:

<section begin= Dionysus />
The text on the first or last pages.
<section end= Dionysus />

then using fromsection="Dionysus" for the first and/or tosection="Dionysus" for the last in the transclusion in main-space.

References in a single page display

On this single page display Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_1/May_1872/Quetelet_on_the_Science_of_Man, transcluded from Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 1.djvu/55, Is it possible to hide the reference showing in the middle of the page, and display it only at the bottom? Now it's displaying in both places. — Ineuw (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the problem. The issue was the djvu Page: was calling <references /> in the main text space. I moved it to the footer space. It still shows up but is no longer transcluded.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 16:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk about instant help. :-) Many thanks (Talk). Is it necessary to use the {{small}} template in the reference, if {{smallrefs}} is placed in the footer of the source, as well as in the transcluded page? I would have a lot to correct. — Ineuw (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, don't small the footnotes themselves; use smallrefs. Hesperian 23:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hesperian, that's what I thought about the small fonts but I am still having footnote reference problems. There are 3 footnote refs in this article Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/May 1872/The Causes of Dyspepsia. One shows up (twice) and the other two, not at all. The problem page seems to be: Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 1.djvu/89. What am I doing wrong? — Ineuw (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You had a smallrefs on page 88 that wasn't noincluded. Removing it seems to have solved your problem.[6] Hesperian 06:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Naming convention?

As someone who works mostly on non-fiction with many cross-references, I often deep-link into nonexistent works. This requires me to make assumption about how works and sections will be named. Though I have often declared the lack of rules here part of the place's charm, I now find myself wishing we had some documentation of our naming conventions. I am willing to volunteer to write something, if there is support for it.

The meta-question is, do we want to document agreed conventions on how to go about naming pages?

[This discussion has been moved to Wikisource talk:Naming conventions. Present proposals and points of discussion are:

• Omit subtitles unless necessary for disambiguation.
• The subtitle, if it exists, is the first choice for disambiguation.
• Second choice for disambiguation is the author.
• Sectional numbers are always given in arabic numerals
• Editions are given in parentheses using "(Ordinal edition)" formula
• Use "/Rank Number" for numbered sections
• Use titles for numbered sections that are standalone works
• When disambiguating translations, use "Title (Author/Translator)"
• Use full names for author pages
• Title case versus sentence case

Please join the discussion there. Hesperian 11:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)]

{{TextQuality}}: to use with transclusion?

Now that we have the <pagequality> where the markers transclude through to the main namespace, it is probably opportune to determine how we wish to use {{TextQuality}} into the future. My basic thought is that if a work has been transcluded, that this template can be removed, and let the transclusion markers work for us. The TQ template can continue to be used for works that have not been transcluded. billinghurst sDrewth 06:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. the information given by the TextQuality template is deprecated whenever transcluded pages are proofread. ThomasV (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

All the same, I kinda like using the graphics to track my progress; e.g. the contents section of Index:Makers of British botany.djvu. Hesperian 15:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are the lists of authors, etc so hidden away?

Please provide an easier way of getting at the various lists (authors, dates, genres). Currently you have to keep clicking down (again and again) many seemingly empty or nearly empty categories, and you get nowhere and give up. Also the categories give misleading information about what your destination is, since they say that something only has for example 2 categories, which does not seem promising and makes the user give up. However these two categories may contain the long list of many authors that you are seeking.

It would be far better if for example, the user seeking to browse a list of authors did not have to click down several empty levels to get to any names, but was presented with a page full of authors whose names began with "A", and with links to the Bs, Cs, etc. And the Abs, Acs etc. if required. It is like having to search though an empty maze. According to this page http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Category:Authors-A it seems you do not have any authors whose name begins with A. 89.242.112.19 11:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've used/abused {{categorytree}} to 'cheat' on navigation like that around here after determining the best logical Common- Category for some range of works, years, authors, etc.

Authors-A (26 C, 1 P)

Authors-Aa (2 P)

Authors-Ab (112 P)

Authors-Ac (33 P)

Authors-Ad (153 P)

Authors-Ae (7 P)

Authors-Af (10 P)

Authors-Ag (28 P)

Authors-Ah (21 P)

Authors-Ai (46 P)

Authors-Aj (empty)

Authors-Ak (15 P)

Authors-Al (331 P)

Authors-Am (56 P)

Authors-An (244 P)

Authors-Ao (empty)

Authors-Ap (38 P)

Authors-Aq (2 P)

Authors-Ar (213 P)

Authors-As (89 P)

Authors-At (68 P)

Authors-Au (66 P)

Authors-Av (23 P)

Authors-Aw (1 P)

Authors-Ax (6 P)

Authors-Ay (26 P)

Authors-Az (4 P)

Wikisource:Authors-A

Not much help for drilling down to specifics within a sub-category but it does cut down on the constant Category clicking up or down & opening then closing pages within the branches. George Orwell III (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Attribution request

I wish to copy some translated text here to help move the Shulchan Aruch translation forward. The author of the new material agrees to release his text under the GFDL, and asks that he be credited

In BOTH the page itself and in the Discussion Page, My name (Dr. Jay Dinovitser DO) and my web site (shulchanarach.com) must be listed as the original source for the material.

Is there some Wikisource policy regarding such on-page credits? --Eliyak T·C 02:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a contradiction here. An author agrees to release material under the condition of the GFDL, and then attempts to impose conditions incompatible with the GFDL. Our history tab is specially designed to meet the attribution conditions of the GFDL. If the works are indeed released under the GFDL, then it suffices to credit the author in your edit summary, so that it shows up in the page history. The author's willingness to release the material under the GFDL implies that they are satisfied with this; conversely, if they are not satisfied, then they must not release the material under the GFDL.

For my part, I see no harm in providing attribution on the discussion page; but I think that providing attribution on the main page is setting a very bad precedent. Hesperian 04:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think attribution requires to list all contributors on every view of the work, merely that it is easy to find this information. What could be done is placing a link "authors of this page" at the top or bottom of the page. The "history" tab is fine for us, but not totally clear for read-only users and newbie editors. The link could go to something like this, enriched by whatever text individual contributors require. Paradoctor (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, we and everyone else credit translators right by the authors. I'm not sure I see the issue with this in theory.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be managed by 1) putting the names of the translators in the translator fields, and then use an OTRS to host the translation, 2) add data within {{textinfo}} on the talk page and link to it with {{edition}}. Or am I missing something? billinghurst sDrewth 22:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the header fields describe the work as published. If I translate something for Wikisource, I don't get my name in the header; I get my user name in the history tab page, and that's it. If I translate something and get it published, with myself attributed as translator, and that published translation subsequently ends up on Wikisource, then my name goes in the header, as publication metadata. Hesperian 14:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov

Any reason for making this banner larger than a typical page header would be now? George Orwell III (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I do the tags, however, I am not sure of the context of your statement. Width? Height? Are you talking about the tag width versus {{header}} width. Can you link to a page where you see the issue and provide some specific detail about the issue? billinghurst sDrewth 21:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind - another user reverted the 'billboard' back down to a reasonable sized banner once again since last. George Orwell III (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your thought seems too persuasive. We have no written policy of what exactly "a reasonable sized banner" is.--Jusjih (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, no artifical limits, please! Paradoctor (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You both take my sarcasm too literally - the point was that the previously changed banner gave far too much extraneous information for use specifically on the EN server based WS. The developed discussion continues over at Template talk:PD-USGov for the most part. George Orwell III (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As a compromise, I am making Template:PD-in-USGov for special cases, as I may prepare to add works of the Selective Service whose website does claim copyright despite 17 USC 105. Fortunately, many other US federal governmental agencies do release their copyright to the public domain without regard to national boundaries based on their copyright policies, but there are exceptions. Please do not redirect that new tag to Template:PD-USGov.--Jusjih (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Appletons' editions

I was going to start filling in blanks in Appletons' and uploaded File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (volume 1).djvu. But it looks like I uploaded an earlier edition than what is already here. Compare Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Adair, William Penn (1900 apparently) with Page:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (volume 1).djvu/30 (1888). Recommendations? Should I try to find the 1900 edition and upload that instead? Should the 1900 entries be replaced with the entries from 1887-1889? Or should they live side by side? Or none of the above? Thanks. Wknight94 (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to continue with the existing work, then we would be looking to have the same edition. The 1888 entries can sit beside the 1900 entries, as they are separate works, and each work is unique. Do we have a preference, assuredly we all will, and assuredly they won't align. :-) 07:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Books digitised by google

If a book is in PD (Published 1882) can I upload here the images of the book, even if it is written there "digitised by google"? --Helohe (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Hesperian 04:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A few points with that.

• Files are loaded to Commons, rather than to here at WS (more at Proofreading)
• Files preferably should be in the .djvu format
• If you are comfortable with the djvu format and have the application, you can prune pages that are not part of the original work. billinghurst sDrewth 04:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Helohe (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright of Texts published in Iran

Another Question: the WP Article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_Iran says that works published in iran are not protected by copyright outside iran, if I understand correctly. So is it possible to upload poetry by Ahmad Shamlou, Sohrab Sepehri, Forrough Farrokhzad, etc... to the Multilanguage-Wikisource or even to the Persian-Wikisource? --Helohe (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Iranian law is not the issue, it is the US law that determines whether we can house the work (as that is where WMF houses the servers). Unless there is an exemption in the US law to Iranian published works, then the existing guidance holds. billinghurst sDrewth 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

True but in the article it says: According to Circular 38a of the U.S. Copyright Office, Iran has no official copyright relations whatsoever with the United States.

Published works originating in Iran thus are not copyrighted in the United States, regardless of the local copyright laws of these countries. See 17 U.S.C. § 104(b), quoted in the Circular. Unpublished works, however, are copyrighted regardless of their origin or of the nationality of the works' authors, as long as they remain unpublished. See 17 U.S.C. § 104(a).

--Helohe (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification, the copyright outside of Iran is only under US law; and may not be relevant to other jurisdictions.

Well that then is the answer. Ensure that they are published works originating in Iran, and not London, New York, or wherever. For us it would only be the works written in English, not those translated, as they would have translation copyright. Probably worthwhile looking deeper at the actual clauses in the Code, as I don't think many of us are fully around the actual law as relates to Iran. billinghurst sDrewth 03:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I will try to compile a list of English works published in Iran.

I would also be interested in modern Persian Poetry: There is the question if works written in persian should be uploaded to the multilingual ws or to the persian fa.ws? Is fa.ws hosted in the usa too (do us laws apply) or in iran? My knowlege of persian is unfortunately quite limited, otherwise I would have asked also in the relevant scriptorium on fa.ws. --Helohe (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Post it on fa.ws; it's far more likely that someone can answer there even if the message is posted in English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's unlikely that many other jurisdictions support the copyright of Iran, since they aren't a signatory of international copyright treaties. I suspect that there's some material translated into English in Iran; at the very least, I suspect the Iranian government has a propaganda wing translating into English as needed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

We, in the Persian wikisource, have decided to omit those works which their writers are alive or have been died during the last 30 years. This is according to Iranian law and we have decided not to go beyond that. I dare to say that we've deleted all of those works so far. --Yoosef Pooranvary (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Good. Thank you for your reply. This would therefore still allow the complete works of w:Forough Farrokhzad to be put on fa.ws . Especially it would be interesting to have a source printed before 1979. Because today most available books are censored.

Also of interest would be w:Sadeq Hedayat. Whose works are also heavily censored today.

kindest regards --Helohe (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Illegible scans

What can be done to replace pages as this? Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 3.djvu/413 — Ineuw (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Find a separate source of the information. There is a possibility to separately upload the pages, and have a rudimentary patch job, works fine for main ns, however, it is less neat and tidy in Page: ns. Alternatively you can look to build them into a new .djvu file if you have the skills, though I would suggest waiting until you know that they are the only problematic pages. billinghurst sDrewth 21:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, I saw others.— Ineuw (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you know?

That at 6 pm (UTC)_on the 19th Feb there wuill be a "Did you know" for w:Isaac Crewdson that has a wikilink to his book which was recently wikisource book of the month. I think its the first time a wikisource book has been linked onto the front page of wikipedia. Be interesting to see how the stats reflect this. Does someone monitor wikisource views? Victuallers (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't regularly, though you may wish to have a poke at http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikisource/EN/ billinghurst sDrewth 21:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - interesting Victuallers (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

De sterkere toename in januari hangt volgens het marat fidarov samen met de prijsontwikkeling in de marat fidarov industrie. In deze branche waren de afzetprijzen in januari bijna 10 procent hoger. In december waren chemische producten nog meer dan 8 procent goedkoper dan een jaar eerder.

Edward Bulwer-Lytton: some dark and stormy issues

Sorry, couldn't resist the subject line.

There are a number of variations on Edward Bulwer-Lytton's name on here:

1. Edward Bulwer-Lytton
2. Lord Lytton
3. Edward Bulwer Lytton Lytton
4. Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton
5. Edward George Earle Lytton Bulwer

...and for some reason, all roads point to the last one there. However, Wikipedia looks like it's settled(?) on Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton. Would it be all right to make that our main page as well? (Or does someone more learned know of a truer name to use in both places?)

Also, I am working on a novel he originally wrote under the pen name "Pisistratus Caxton". However, the edition I'm using does a curious thing and gives both his pen name and "Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, Bart."). (the latter in yet another variation.Should we use one, the other, or both in the headers?

—LarryGilbert (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Use one in the header author field, possibly use the other in notes field.

This is a topic that still has some variation of opinions, and was more recently approached (presumably, again). The book purists say as it is on the book, while the Author: purists would say for the header always use the full decided name, and leave the book as it and wikilink as appropriate. The pragmatists say as long as it all leads to the same page, what does it matter. In the end, our naming practice was to fully expand names and there is discussion at Wikisource talk:Naming conventions#Use full names for author pages

WP is more (less?) fortunate that it only looks at the person's name with a static reflective gaze, rather than at WS, where we are often dealing with a dynamic name, (women marrying, British aristocracy, military and those who are awarded honours. SBDEL refers to him as Lytton, Edward George Earle Lytton-Bulwer, 1st Lord. billinghurst sDrewth 22:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Do-over on Hoyt's

I have discovered that Hoyt’s New Cyclopedia of Practical Quotations (1922), which we have imported from a Google Books version, has already been completely imported into Bartleby.com with pages divided by subject, and their version does not contain the numerous typos and missing punctuation that our current import has. Can we start over and just copy theirs (and their formatting)? Seems it would save a great deal of formatting effort. Cheers! BD2412 T 22:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note, we would have to retain the indexes of the current import, as Bartleby's has only the quotes. BD2412 T 22:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

We could consider a Match and Split if the text is updated onto the main namespace pages to be transcluded back into the Page: namespace. We would need to reproof from there, however, it sounds like it would be a lot easier than scratch. billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no preference as to the method, so long as the end is to have the more accurate rendition of the material. BD2412 T 04:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just looked deeper at the version on Commons, and it looks to be 1940 edition which I have now nominated as possible copyright. At archive.org there is a 1922 edition, and another is the 1895 edition, which do you think we should be looking to house? Want to check which Bartleby is quoting as their source? billinghurst sDrewth 14:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bartleby says 1922 (which makes sense because that's what they do as well). I say we take the cautious road, ditch our current scan of Hoyt's and scrape Bartleby's. They have no rights to it, since they've copied the original right down to the formatting. BD2412 T 01:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Image frames

Is it possible to change image frames like this to transparent, so that they blend better into the background? — Ineuw (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Use frameless instead of thumb. I would crop the caption from the image. Consider letting the user's preference dictate the size of the image, it may interfere with access and greatly increases each page's size. Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cygnis. Are you referring to image size in bytes or the measurement size? I left the caption so that it will easily identified in Wikimedia for other projects. — Ineuw (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Measurement. I add the caption to the file info and link a second, unchanged file at "other_versions=" Cygnis insignis (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Deutsche Pomologie

I have beedn uploading the images from Wilhelm Leute's Deutsche Pomologie (1882) to Commons. My source is http://library.wur.nl/speccol/fruithof/birnen/ which also has the textual content. However, as there are 100 varieties of pears there (and also another 100 on apples which I haven't uploaded yet), I would appreciate any help in bringing the text over. I haven't found a source of scans of the text of this book.

I have started the book at Deutsche Pomologie, and copied in and formatted the first entry in "Birnen" (pears).

This book has beautiful illustrations and would be a lovely thing to have full formatted and organized (however, I haven't seen the final four volumes on the Internet, only the first two).

Inductiveload (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an appropriate volume for the English Wikisource. It should be taken to the German Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. OK, is there an easy way to do it? Or just copy by hand? Inductiveload (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems you only have the main Deutsche Pomologie page (which I first misread as "Deutsche Pornologie"!) and three subpages, so it's probably fastest and easiest to just cut-and-paste the content to pages there (assuming de:Deutsche Pomologie doesn't already exist). Angr 18:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not that kind of apple that is involved, but if you must.., ;-) I put it at de:ws, but they need a full scan, so it was rejected. Looks like WS isn't the place for this book at the moment, or maybe it can go in the "main" wikisource area (not en.ws). All the pics are at Commons with a link, so it's not going anywhere. I'll come back to it later. I guess Deutsche Pomologie and all subpages should be deleted now. Cheers, − Inductiveload (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Reporting error corrections

I created a new template Template:Corr, in order to let users report corrections they make to the text. It is linked to javascript, so that a pop-up div that shows the list of corrections can be displayed. Example : Page:The Perth Gazette and Western Australian Journal 1(2).djvu/3. There are two links that trigger the pop-up, one in the left margin ('corrections') and one inside the pagequality message. Once the popup is open, clicking on a correction scrolls the window to its position in the text.

There was already a template to report corrections, Template:SIC. I did not modify it because I was not sure if it is used in the same conditions; it does not display the corrected text. However it is possible to merge both templates if it makes sense.

Do not forget to reload your javascript if things do not work as expected.

ThomasV (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

{{SIC}} does have a hover pop up that displays 2 as the alternate word. billinghurst sDrewth 21:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

ThomasV explained that this works in the reverse direction of {{SIC}} in that it puts the corrected word into main ns, and hovers the original form. Somewhat akin to how {{ls}} shows the modern form in main ns. billinghurst sDrewth 22:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It actually puts the corrected word in and hovers the original, regardless of namespace.

I have my doubts about whether it is the proper thing to be correcting published text. I understand many of you feel differently, and that's okay... but I better not ever see this used on Chaucer. Hesperian 11:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not have particular feelings about whether we should display uncorrected or corrected text by default. All I wanted to demonstrate is the popup window that shows up if you click on the "corrections" link, and how it allows to easily locate corrections made to the text. ThomasV (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

clarification : Please understand that my proposal is about the popup window, not about whether text should be rendered as corrected or not, which is a separate issue. If the community prefers to display uncorrected text, then I can link the popup window to the SIC template, and delete the Corr template. I did not use SIC to do the demonstration for technical reasons. ThomasV (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I like this proposal. I think the box that shows where textual corrections have been made is handy. Is it possible to also have the box show up on the transcluded page in the main namespace? My reasoning is that for most articles in Page: the amount of transcribed text is small, whereas on the main namespace it can be quite large. Being able to quickly see where corrections have been made amongst a huge amount of text would be really handy.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 23:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Zhaladshar: it is already the case. check here(and also here to see how it behaves with a column of text.) ThomasV (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh. It does. Sometimes it only shows up sporadically on Chrome. It shows up perfectly on FF. I think it might be a caching issue. Anyway, this is great.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 01:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Conceptually, I have no issue with the of pop-up boxes being available. I haven't quite seen the positive value for me in having a pop-up box for corrections/SIC as they are underlined in the text. However, if some people like it, and it doesn't interfere with the work, then I am happy to help mold it. A box needs to be movable to not block the text, or maybe resizable, or maybe even collapsible.

Thoughts about the box and its uses. It would be helpful if the text identified had a page number against it, to assist location. There are also other possibilities for said box, listing user annotations, source data, or things that we have now started to put onto the discussion pages that could have more benefit being more visible/available.

To Hesperian's comments, I very much think that we should Type what we see, and not correct spellings from a work. The use of SIC/corrections/annotations should be used lightly and to identify 1) that the word is not a transcription error, but as it appeared in the work, 2) to add clarity to something that may be ambiguous, 3) to add value to link to other works, or possibly to identify a later work, or a contradictory work. I see that changes may be made between the Page: namespace and the main namespace for things like {{long s}} conversion, or where we may be working with written works, and there there is text annotation that work from the reverse of a sheet is to be included. So here we have the text as the author wanted it presented in the main ns, and as it was produced in the Page: ns. billinghurst sDrewth 03:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with billinghurst. There are three issues here. In my view:

1. All annotations should be marked up as class="annotatedtext", and there should be a master {{annotation}} template which special case templates like "sic" and "corr" wrap, so that all annotations get styled in a consistent manner; this implies that spelling corrections be treated like any other annotation, which implies that the "SIC" form is the way to go, not "CORR".
2. With respect to how we style that class, Thomas's proposal is unobjectionable and a good start.
3. With respect to how we use annotations, billinghurst's comments have it about right. I might use it for ambiguous names that don't merit an author page (e.g. {{annotate|text=Mr Bland|annotation=Rivett Henry Bland (1801–1894)}}); for archaic species names (e.g. {{annotate|text=Banksia asplenifolia|annotation=now Banksia oblongifolia}}); errata (e.g. see {{annotate|text=p. 67|annotation=actually p. 76; see Errata.}}); stuff like that.

Hesperian 06:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• The decision to 'correct' or not is made by publishers, editors and later authors, sometimes much to their chagrin if we use Rossetti's corrections to Blake's poetry as an example. I suppose that most users can process a typo faster than they can mouse-over it, if it is not an obvious correction it would, of course, be questionable. We will have to attempt to resolve any discussions that emerge without recourse to anything but another user's opinion, previous disputes of a similar nature have been resolved by 'she is persistent, really upset, or an admin, he is not, therefore her opinion has priority'. Are we all comfortable with the existing process? Adding content, any content, opens a can of worms and risks comprising the scope and integrity of this site. Useful original content, however that is defined, is well within the scope of wikibooks and wikipedia. If this sort of thing is implemented it will need extensive guidelines and definitions, because part of the unexplored down-side to this sort of thing will be users 'correcting' variant spelling, adding pseudonymous scholarship and around 25 other things I will be happy to list. We should not treat readers as fools, they know the world is imperfect and books occasionally have typos, its not our role to fix that. I don't think my local library would allow me in if I got my pen out and annotated or corrected things, despite the qualifications and rationale I could present to justify that. Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I too believe that it is not our role to annotate text; this indeed would open a can of worms that I don't want to open, and I completely agree with Cygnis on that. However, we had to introduce the Corr template at fr.ws, because we noticed that without it, users tend to fix typos without reporting them at all, which I believe is worse; the purpose of the template is to keep track of corrections. Please note that this template does not let users introduce annotations. Users are also not supposed use the template in order to introduce variant spellings; the scope of "corrections" is only to report an obvious error made by the editor.

Some users at fr.ws insisted on having the possibility to show texts with modern spelling. The danger is that this strongly interfers with the proofreading process, and I think it is not acceptable to let users modernize text directly in the Page: namespace. In addition, modernizing each occurence of each word is particularly stupid. In order to prevent the spread of stupid idea and practice, I wrote another javascript tool that uses a Dictionary to convert old spelling to recent spelling. Please understand that I did not write this tool because I like the idea of users modernizing text, but in order to spare the Page: namespace and to preserve the integrity of text. The javascript replaces words found in the text with their modern form given by the dictionary. Context-dependent changes are defined in a micro-dictionary attached to the page in the main namespace. You can see an example here : fr:La Cigale et la Fourmi. (click the link "texte modernisé")

ThomasV (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

@billinghurst : each line in the popup is a link, so locating the occurence in the text is easy.

Note : here is a page that I setup recently, where various javascript tools for wikisource are proposed : oldwikisource:Wikisource:Shared_Scripts ThomasV (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I too would be strongly against a modernising script. It is what it is, that said, I am not above annotating with a hover, especially something like nre (with a tilde above the r when I haven't managed to replicate) to demonstrate that the word is nature billinghurst sDrewth 14:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete Page:Philosophical Transactions - Volume 001 - Front Cover.djvu

Can someone delete the page(s) and index associated with Page:Philosophical Transactions - Volume 001 - Front Cover.djvu? It is just one page that can now be found at the start of Page:Philosophical Transactions - Volume 001 - Front Matter.djvu. The original file has been put up for deletion at Commons as a duplicate. Thanks Inductiveload (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, but double check what is going on because there is also: Page:Philosophical Transactions - Volume 001 - Front Cover.djvu/1. You can also use {{Sdelete}} to request and rationalise deletion. Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that page needs to go to, it's been copied over. I wasn't sure how to add a template like that to the index page, so I though it easiest to ask here. Thanks for that, Inductiveload (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My head is spinning :-) The page history says "moved to Page:Philosophical Transactions - Volume 1 - Front Matter.djvu", prompting these questions: a) Are you aware of the tab that moves a page and its history? b) Where is the Page: content and its transclusion currently placed? Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Stalking your contribs answered me own questions, I'm assuming that Page:Philosophical Transactions - Volume 001 - Front Matter.djvu/1 is what we want. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for any confusion. I hadn't noticed Page: pages could be moved. I had assumed that they were linked to the Commons file (and I looked at a blank page which clearly doesn't have a move tab! My bad! Cheers, Inductiveload (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In the Page: namespace it is a link to the respective image only. When a page is created, it will cleverly inhale the text layer of the .djvu file and show the image. So if we delete a page, we can again inhale the original text from the djvu file and start over. WS makes no changes to the file at Commons. billinghurst sDrewth 07:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How to activate the "source" tab?

Over at Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, I need to add the "source" tab to the volume ToC articles, but these articles do not directly transclude any pages. How do I make the "source" tab appear? -Arch dude (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

At this time the only means is to transclude using the <pages> or {{Page}} nomenclature, section transclusion doesn't achieve it. So, one needs to manually add indexes to the notes field. It has been discussed with ThomasV, however, there are other priorities in coding, so unlikely in the next rendition. billinghurst sDrewth 06:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As a temporary workaround, I added a small superscripted link, like this,^(SI) to the notes field. -Arch dude (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Help

Can someone tell me of I going about validating correctly. Please take a look at my contribs and give some advice, The New Mikemoral (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Had a peek, looks okay. One thing to note in some early books, is that they had lovely shiny images, and they used to have a semi-translucent tissue-paper like page between images and text pages. eing mindful that these are in the books, will prevent the unnecessary transcribing. Just mark them without text.

I am hoping that you have visited Wikisource:WikiProject Popular Science Monthly and added your name. There should also be good guidance about the specific formatting and guidance available for the work. billinghurst sDrewth 07:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --The New Mikemoral (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with djvu

Hello,

I need help on Index:De Vismes Kane-European Butterflies.djvu. Some pages are in double in the DJVU, like 110 and 112. I don't know how to solve this properly, can someone help me ? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I blanked the second of the pages, and we just will not transclude it. We will need to go back and redo the page numbering at some point. Generally this has happened when they have a bad scan or forget whether they have or haven't scanned the page spread. billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a couple of us at it together. We will wait until we get out of each other's way and fix it. No worries. billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Called to dinner, but fixed now I think. I'd mark them as problematic, given the options available, although the note probably does enough. Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That was me, as otherwise they show up in places and look like they need action. Meaning that I forget and go to them over and over and over ... (d'oh). We probably should more readily discuss that at some point, or not. billinghurst sDrewth 13:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right. I didn't consider that, the notes cover the incongruous description. I should clarify I added a note to the index too. Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocking edit of a transcluded page

I am concerned about the creation of a page in the wrong namespace. In the The Popular Science Monthly Project, the indexes display the transcluded Table of Contents from here, to this page, and which is the way it must be. Is there a way to block editing the transclusion on the index page, rather than adding the full main space name? — Ineuw (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It is very late, and you are not being clear. Please provide a link to the troublesome edit so we can better understand your concern. We can do all sorts of things, we just often choose to keep the tighter controls for things that are targets of vandalism, or have a great impact upon the site, not easily revertable edits. billinghurst sDrewth 16:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikisource:Scriptorium/November 1874/The Natural History of the Oyster I from the volume 6 TOC display. Good night. :) 16:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I see the issue; the template uses relative links to link pages from the table of contents, so when it's transcluded, those links are interpreted as relative to the index page, which is wrong. So I take it the question is whether you can have the relative links stay relative to the template? I think the answer is no, you'd need to use qualified links there, i.e. Popular Science Monthly/Volume 6/November 1874/The Natural History of the Oyster I -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this loses the advantage of relative links, be sure (as you can be) that the titles are stable. There is another solution, "a namespace switching prefix", though it adds a lot of code to page space. The purpose of Page and Index namespaces is primarily display in main space, I don't sweat it when the links turn up red there. Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the relative links and will not change that. I just thought that there may be a simple solution from a similar past post, and it was worth asking.— Ineuw (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a site undergoing continuous improvement. Questions prompt solutions if none exists, thanks for asking them. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Try using the template {{namespace link}} I think that it will do what you want.

Addendum, I often use it in conjunction with {{DJVU page link}} on the page numbers

---

Thank you all for the supportive input. I saw two possibilities.

1. A template which converts the relative path, as in Notes into plain text displayed as Notes.
2. Coding the actual link. The {{namespace link}} is not applicable because it takes more to code.

Truth be told, starting from volume 3, I progressively refined the technique of generating the main namespace header, the Table of Contents, and the Index pages, from a single master list. So, altering the code and regenerating a new TOC based on either of the above concepts is not a problem. (I can post the code and any info for anyone interested.) The reason I asked, is because I don't know what is the preferred way for the majority of current and future editors.— Ineuw (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple column list,

Is it possible to list these words Wikisource:WikiProject Popular Science Monthly/Archaic spellings in a multiple column format? Including the automatically generated Table of Contents? {{multicol}} doesn't work, and I am looking for something other than a wiki table. This is not an urgent issue! — Ineuw (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you describe what the problem is? I tested it, and it worked like a charm. BTW, you might want to use __NOTOC__ and adapt the code of {{TOC}} for your page. Paradoctor (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Paradoctor, many thanks. Ignorance is painful and the learning curve is awful. I got it. — Ineuw (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange, I never noticed that. Though a lot of people say that about me. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It may have been that the page needed to be purged. Ineuw, if you have the clock gadget, you can purge by clicking it. Otherwise add ?action=purge to the end of the url. billinghurst sDrewth 05:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple column list, continued

I implemented the TOC template and the uppercases work, but most lowercase doesn't. It's strange, and I suspect the limitation to be that of the template user. When given the inclination, and the curiosity, could someone look at the mystery? This issue lacks urgency. — Ineuw (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the generated HTML, you'll note that the anchor names for the lowercase sections all have "_2" appended. That's Mediawiki's caps magic at work. I adapted the TOC accordingly. Paradoctor (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Paradoctor, what can I say. If I were to wear a hat, I would tip it. But since I don't, I included an image of what it would be like. :-) I hope you like it. — Ineuw (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

:) Paradoctor (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Expansion depth limit exceeded"

Hello. On the TOC inclusion for Herschel I keep getting a lot of "Expansion depth limit exceeded" errors, but I can't for the life of me figure out where they're coming from. Calling contents pages from other books using the same code in Herschel works fine, yet copying those same contents pages into Page:Hector Macpherson - Herschel (1919).djvu/9 doesn't. My suspicion is that there's something odd in the header, but I can't figure out how to see the complete source to check this. Can anyone help fix this, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

{{TOC link}} requires that the name of the djvu file be the same as the main namespace file. It uses #switch, so when in the main namespace it is trying to pull up other components hence the error. billinghurst sDrewth 04:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(Correction). It may have been the self reference to the page, which didn't seem to fix it when saved and all purged, however, when I tried a different type of linking and saved and purged, all the links worked. Moon perigee? <shrug> billinghurst sDrewth 05:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Does flood flag work here?

Permitted by our restricted_access_policy here, I was trying the flood flag to make repetitive changes to add {{Pd/1923|1958}} for works by Robert W. Service to avoid flooding recent changes here, but I still see my repetitive edits even when logged out, so I wonder if flood flag works here.--Jusjih (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC) (a steward learning to use flood flag)

I don't see it here Special:UserRights, so that sounds like a no. You might see different things with your access. billinghurst sDrewth 04:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

We cannot add or drop the flag here. I could give me the flag temporarily only as a steward from Meta. Any stewards may add and drop flood flag on any wiki, but perhaps our wiki here has not enabled it. I do not know how to make bots.--Jusjih (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for Wikisource:Featured text candidates and Wikisource:Proofread of the Month

There has been so much good work done on works, and so few nominations for FTC. I simply don't believe that it is the case, so get cracking, find examples of your good works, and please add them to Wikisource:Featured text candidates. Alternatively, if you can think of an anniversary event, for which we can promote a work, then that too is a point of interest. Or if you wish to progress a work, then it may be possible that we have it as Wikisource:Proofread of the Month. Lots of things are possible, and we like the challenge of something different, so please bring it on! billinghurst sDrewth 07:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Watched pages

1. How can I get to the line number of a watched page displaying the changes received in an email notice?
2. Also, I get two email copies in most, but not all cases. Thought I should mention it. — Ineuw (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)