Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2012-06

Proposals

Add WSexport to sidebar

Are there any objections to adding the WSexport tool to the sidebar so we can download in EPUB format? According to Oldwikisource:Wikisource:WSexport, we just need to add this to MediaWiki:Common.js:

//link "Download as EPUB"
 if (wgNamespaceNumber == 0) {
   $(document).ready( function () {
     mw.util.addPortletLink(
       'p-coll-print_export',
       '//toolserver.org/~tpt/wsexport/book.php?lang=en&format=epub&page=' + mw.config.get('wgPageName'),
       'Download as EPUB',
       'n-epubExport',
       'Download an EPUB version of this page',
       '',
       '#t-print'); 
   });
 }

I've used it a few times directly from the toolserver and once from my personal javascript; it seems to work. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we try it as a gadget? All working well, then we can have it as a default YES, and then later we can look at all our links and see how it fits within the kit of links. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Please please add this. Linnea (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I had to figure out how gadgets work but I've done that and the tool is now gadgetised. I've tested the new gadget a few times since going live and each test succeeded. The EPUBs are not perfect but I believe that's due to the tool itself and the difficulty in automatically generating files. Not that the EPUBs are bad; the worst I've noticed so far is that different text sizes do not seem to be supported. Anyway, it is currently the last gadget in the list, under "Development", in preferences. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yay thanks! Different text sizes are no-no in ebooks because you want to change the font setting on the reader depending of the screen size and screen orientation and so on. There are some work left to do still. Left and right settings don't work on epub. I mean, it is not good when the image is forced to have text on it's side. All images should be "hanging free" because there is no page breaks. But it is ok. At least now we can read wikisource easily on ebook readers. :) Linnea (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Relative text sizes work fine in ebooks, and seem to be more or less a necessity--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Flood option that administrators can apply

I would like to put before the community an extra right that I believe would be beneficial to the community's toolkit. The right is the flood flag, and it would be used by any of our administrators and to be applied for a temporary period on themself or another user where there is the need for a series of edits to be obscured from the standard setting of RecentChanges; and instead to have them visible through the same filter for displaying bot edits; specifically this is to stop the flood of the standard RC setting so that patrolling of edits is not adversely affected. The sort of times that I would see that this option would be used would be situations similar to where I recently added {{authority control}} template to a few hundred author pages, or Hesperian's work on disambiguations. The former a situation where a standard bot could not be applied, the latter one where bot like actions required with some administrator guidance, both unnecessary for applying formal bot-type operations.

I would suggest that the management of the rights should be similar to how we are currently self-managing the options for Abuse Filter and Autopatrol in that a reasoned explanation in the summary line will suffice. All application of rights are logged at Special:Log/rights and visible via Special:ListUsers and if we look at the example at meta, through Special:Listusers/flood. The holding of the right would and should be applied for a short term period. If the community is in favour of requesting the right (done via bugzilla:), I would suggest that we look to review the application of the self-management of rights three and twelve months after adoption of the tool, to review the allocation of the right. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No Objections. Jeepday (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Bugzilla:36863 — billinghurst sDrewth 14:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Other discussions

Extemporaneous speech

Flight 93 Transcript with CARTC, September 11th FDNY Radio Transcripts, and 9/11 Dispatcher transcript is currently marked as no license. Flight 93 Cockpit Transcript is marked with the obviously wrong PD-USGov. I'm sure there are more similar transcripts around. Extemporaneous speech does not gather a copyright normally, but if we want to make that assertion, can someone whose comfortable with the law here make an appropriate license tag for these?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The last I checked, these were all part of the evidence collected, examined & released by the 9/11 Commission in their Final Report (which is PD-USGov by nature). I recall (fairly well) both Flight 93 related transcripts among others as being part of the Notes to Chapter 1 (ref 160 something by the FAA/NTSB) and pretty sure the other 2 were also entered as evidence & cited as such in one of the other Notes sections (but its been a couple of years since I read the report so don't hold me to those other two for sure). Anyone still have a copy lying around? The abbreviated version only cites these whereas the bundle had the full text. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, just to clarify, PD-USGov does wash clean works that are incorporated. In other words, a copyrighted work may become evidence or otherwise incorporated into a report and would not lose its copyright. I'm not taking any position on the question itself, I haven't looked into it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Flight voice/data recorders are FAA property; not the airline's. I've dealt with the FAA memos (the transcripts) previously in smacking down various wingnuts and their double-remote-controlled-Boeing-737-reouted-to-covert-airstrip-and-blah-blah 9/11 truther conspiracies more times than I care to remember, so I'm as close to positive as possible that PD-USGov applies to 2 if not 3 of the transcripts involving the FAA without being a lawyer. The FDNY stuff may be a different story but I doubt it - if the 9/11 Commission cites it, then I'd bet its been cleared of all names, etc. and released into PD via evidence or similar legal avenue during their investigation. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any experience with cockpit voice/data recorders and will take your word for it. I only meant to clarify that simply putting it in a transcript that was a Gov't document wouldn't make an otherwise copyrightable work PD-Gov. I have no issues with your conclusion.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Tagged the articles Flight 93 Transcript with CARTC, September 11th FDNY Radio Transcripts, and 9/11 Dispatcher transcript with {{copyvio}} and copied above to Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Extemporaneous_speech. Scriptorium discusions are archived for inactivity, WS:CV are only archived on closure of copyright question. Jeepday (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Issues with upgrade to 1.20wmf1

Proofread page related

New Interface problem Done

The "source" tab has disappeared from the top of mainspace pages that have transcluded pages from the Page namespace. For example, Great Expectations/Chapter XXVIII is fully transcluded and has the coloured bar to indicate progress, but where 24 hours ago there was a tab button in between "page" and "discussion" with the word "source" on it, it's not there anymore. I can find no alternative way to jump straight to the Index. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried purging your css & js files? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Double refresh got it for me. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Header/Footer Done

I have found that despite the header/footer gadget saying OPEN, that the header/footer flashes as open then displays as closed. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It may be a problem with a script that use the self.proofreadpage_show_headers var. We solve this problem on fr by removing this var from scripts. Tpt (talk)

Disable the gadget in your preferences and enable the option also in your preferences, editing tab. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Amazing that we had that embedded into the pages. I have (re)customised the text to what was with the gadget. And I have addressed the issue of the default status of the headers. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

sections Done

On it.wikisource we got a problem with labeled sections. Go to it:Myricae/Finestra illuminata/III Dopo?. All ok. Now click edit and then preview. The text that appears is the result of the trasclusion switching "fromsection" with "tosection" and viceversa. Candalua (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I have make a mistake with the implementation of "include", "exclude" and "step". I have submit a commit in order to solve this problem. We have only to wait for the next deployment (15 days). Tpt (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have open a bug here : https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36093. Tpt (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the code was patched in response to the bugzilla a couple of hours ago. A cache-purge/hard-refresh may be needed on pages previously observed to have been affected by this. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

When I read 15 days I thought: What?!? :-) But then it was solved very quickly. Thank you very very much. Candalua (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Horizontal Layout

I have a problem when trying to use the "Horizontal layout when editing in Page: namespace" option in Gadgets, as the image of the source does not appear (reappears when I take this option off, but I find that makes editing harder)--George Burgess (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Other issues

pagequality class

From the previous MediaWiki update, every link to a Page used to have a css class associated with pagequality level. There had been some debate here on en.ws whether this was right or not, but anyway the class in itself didn't do any harm: the subdomains who liked it could use it, the subdomains who didn't like it could simply set their css rules to ignore it. But now it has disappeared. Did someone ask for its removal? It's really sad that useful features are added just to be dropped some months later. Candalua (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit: I see from the end of this discussion that the change was unintentional and it was reverted?!? But WHY, for God's sake???? Just because it's unintentional doesn't mean it's bad, on the contrary, I've shown in the above discussion that there was no need to revert, only to fix css styles! Candalua (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Gatgetize it locally if need be. Normal proofreading should be taking place in the Page: & Index namespaces anyway. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't gadgetise it without the class information being present in the page. The server can easily give you this information, but it is almost impossible to get it after page serving, without some horribly slow and inefficient hack like AJAXing in all the linked Page: NS pages. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh well. Normal proofreading should be taking place in the Page: & Index namespaces anyway. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The colours are useful in contexts other than the proofreading in these namespaces, as shown by the presence of the status bar in the mainspace. Other Wikisources also found them useful for labelling individual page number links. If it were to be a documented effect, every Wikisource can respond as they please, including ignoring them. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Other wikisources, such as it., have also opted for no dynamic layouts - why not here? (rehtorical). Look I get what you're saying but you obviously don't gey what I'm saying - the problem, as it is in most of these cases, was the process here. No proposal, no authorization, no test-run & no consensus formed to make the change; end of story, Bugzilla or otherwise.

I don't want this "on" just to have to turn it off thru CSS because I don't see it being useful nor in the spirit of standing practices & policies; others might see it as you do. We won't know until en.WS established regulars are put the option in a formal proposal process. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Process wasn't followed because it was a mistake. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

And mistakes are typically corrected. Why this section appears as part of the issues with the wmf1.20 upgrade when it was really a correction is the question. Should I consider it part of an effort to make a "happy" mistake, now corrected, reverted once again as if it were really a bug in wmf1.20. and easier than going through normal channels by some in spite of the community? Probably not but at least I've made that point clear and unmistakable. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been corrected, and the people who had built a useful system on the mistake without realising that it wasn't supposed to happen saw a regression in the 1.20 upgrade from their perspective. Hence the comment here. There is no conspiracy, honest. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 20:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Candalua: the code actually was defective, as it was a programming mistake caused by an accidental commented line and didn't do what it said it would, though as you say that doesn't mean the effect wasn't useful (mutations are not always harmful, it's not only Peppered moth evolution and E. coli that demonstrate that principle!). It does, however, make the code hard to maintain as the code isn't then documented correctly. If some sort of consensus could be reached, one could remove the code that aborts link-colouring if not in the Index: NS (i.e. remove lines 443 and 444 here) and use local gadgets and CSS to define when and where link-colouring is used. This would then be, as Zaran said above, a matter of a Bugzilla ticket. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Inductiveload, if I get it right, you're saying: if the comment does not match with the code, let's change the code... I would say: if the code is good, let's keep the code and change the comment! So the situation is: just because you don't want to do a simple fix on your common.css (I really don't understand why), you've made us lose a useful feature. Anyway. My next proposal is: re-add the class, but with some prefix, something like "linkcolor-qualityX", so that it doesn't interfere with your css rules and you still see everything like before without doing any change on your side. Please, can we reach consensus at least on this? Candalua (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, but functional changes should be discussed, and the code was still not quite right, even for the new effect (there was at least one extra line that should have been removed in that case). I support the idea, but I am sick of fighting the paranoia that derails nearly every discussion that involves the words "layouts", "CSS", "JS" or "extension" into a rear-guard defence. All I'm doing is saying what happened to cause this and how you'd progress if you wanted to change it back. Start a proposal at here or at oldWS and I'll chime in, but I'm not doing more than that in this hostile climate. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 20:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit, sorry that was out of order. I'm willing to help on this if we can reach an agreement. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 02:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Moved to established Proposals section above. See Proposal concerning pagequality class. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User defined .js toolbar problem revisited

I reported this issue after the 1.19wmf1 update and posted about it on several occasions, once here, and with Inductiveload on his talk page. Unfortunately we found no working solution.

Now, it's carried over to v1.20wmf1 as well with a variation - that on rare occasion, the toolbar appears properly. I was able to catch this earlier today and uploaded a snapshot of how it is now, and how it should be. My problem is that the split confuses and slows me down, causing editing errors.

I understand that no one here can fix this and I am asking how to go about reporting this to the developers. From my understanding of the editing Source Document, this is not a bug but a design change after v1.18wmf1 which causes this issue. Thanks in advance — Ineuw talk 23:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Selecting new eras

It has been pointed out, in Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help, that the eras as used on Wikisource are incorrect. Currently they are:

Eras
Era	Period
Ancient	Before AD 600
Medieval	601–1420
Renaissance	1421–1630
Early modern	1631-1899
Modern	1900–present

According to Wikipedia, the Early modern period is roughly from the end of the Medieval period up to the Industrial Revolution; a time span that covers the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the Age of Discovery. The Late modern era roughly begins with the Industrial revolution and ends with the beginning of the cold war/end of World War 2. This is followed by the contemporary era (1945-present). (The ends of the ancient and medieval periods are also debatable).

These eras do not have strict dates but Wikisource needs them for categorisation. Authors are automatically categorised into these eras based on their birth and death years. We also need some central point of reference for a large group of disparate volunteers to co-ordinate in categorising works.

So, we need to decide if we are going to stick with our current eras or redefine them.

One easy approach would be to conflate the Renaissance and Early Modern eras into the Modern era. That would, however, have a lot of works and authors crowded into one period (Joan of Arc sharing the era with Steve Jobs). We could merge Renaissance and Early Modern. We can also a new era, Contemporary, adjusting the others to fit, although "contemporary" may not long mean post-WW2.

Thoughts? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think we need to ask ourselves, "what are we trying to do with these categories? What is our purpose in dividing authors and works by eras and how are users served?" I don't think the current system does anything of value. In fact, it's a net detriment as it places authors in works in the wrong periods altogether, so anyone familiar with such terms would not look for them in the categories they are in. The major historical eras have arbitrary but useable start and end points. The Renaissance does not and there is some argument that it never even occurred in England. If we're going to make a different era at that time, "Elizabethan" would make more sense (and benefits from being clearly defined). On the whole, though, it seems that simply making things available by year, decade, and century, is more useful - you don't have to know what arbitrary era something has been placed in. Is there an easy way to search by a date range?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the eras are a useful tool for finding an author. Birth and death categories are very specific and do not allow a reader to find an author in "roughly period X" or near contemporaries. I can't think of an easy way to search a variety of categories at once. We could make the era categories a two-layer system, with parent eras (Ancient/Medieval/Modern) and child eras (they all have about three sub-divisions). The Renaissance is apparently a sub-division of the Early Modern era, which is itself a sub-divison of the Modern era; so we could skip it in favour of Early Modern. On the other hand, the US Library of Congress appears to date the Renaissance as 1500-1700, if we need an external point of reference for a specific date range. The Renaissance is a recognised period and it would still apply to period translations, even if not to the works originally in English. If we keep it, it can either overlap with Early Modern (authors of the time being categorised into both) or be a child of it—making it a grandchild category of the Modern era. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

For reference, that would something like the following. It gets a bit vague in the older periods. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Era	Era	Period
Ancient	Bronze Age	Pre-600 BC?
	Early Iron Age	600 BC? - ?
	Classical antiquity	? - 400/600? AD
Medieval	Early medieval	401/601? - 1000
	High medieval	1001 - 1300
	Late medieval	1301 - 1500
Modern	Early modern	1501 - 1800
	Late modern	1801 - 1945
	Contemporary	1946 - present

• The problem I have with the Renaissance is that it is a recognized (though only in Continental Europe and even there disputed by some) period with no agreed beginning and end. The period 1500-1700 used by the LoC doesn't agree with any time period I find anywhere else and we haven't modeled on the LoC for other eras. And it varies widely by country. Also, using a period that has questionable relevance to English just because it has relevance to, say, Italian, would argue for using non-European periods as well. Part of the problem with the period "Renaissance" is the same problem with the cusp of late antiquity/early medieval once being called the "Dark Ages". Hardly anyone would refer to it as that now, yet that's exactly why there's a 200 year gray area around the end of late antiquity. The problem is clear in the version above, where the Early Iron Age begins after the beginning of Classical Antiquity which started in the 8th C. BCE according to the Wikipedia article linked for the latter, the former article indicates that the Iron Age ran from around 1200 BCE to 400 CE in Europe but was over by 600 BCE in the Near East.
• Contemporary is a moving target, 1946 is just its current point of reference accepted by some, others would say the 1930s, 1960s or even 1980s.
• Again, I ask "what are we trying to do?" finding a rough contemporaries only works if you are away from the cusps. If I want to find an author or a list of rough contemporaries of an author from AD 500, I'm never going to know which period to search. The same for knowing whether a 1930s or 1940s author is late modern or contemporary, though in about 20 years both will be clearly in the former category.
• On the other hand, anything that clarifies that the 1890s were not early modern is an improvement over what we have now.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly if I'm looking for a 19th-century author I'm never going to look under "Early Modern authors". Probably not even if I'm looking for an 18th-century author, but that may be because I'm a linguist rather than a literature person and I would only look under "Early Modern authors" if the person wrote in Early Modern English, which is generally held to have ended about 1700. (For example, some people may consider Jonathan Swift Early Modern, but judging by linguistic criteria he isn't, he's Modern.) Angr 19:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• It seems like there is a lot of variation in periods (years) that fit the "labels" what if you use the periods (i.e. 1301 - 1500) instead of the labels, there is less room for confusion that way, and it will never become outdated. Jeepday (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  I think the labels help newer or casual readers. Words like "ancient", "medieval" and "modern" help there but the precise subdivisions is a problem. One approach would be to ignore the Ancient Era for now, remove Renaissance altogether (or, at least, not have it as an automatic addition; only applying it manually where appropriate) and use something other than "Contemporary" for the rolling Current Era. (For that: "Post-War" is correct but could be confusing, "Atomic" would also be accurate, and "Post-modern" is apparently used sometimes although I don't like it.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Periodization is never neat, and words like "Renaissance" and "Medieval" are more than just imprecise; they are also culturally relative. I always thought it was weird that our system makes 15th-century Indian mystics into "Renaissance authors" and 14th-century Chinese writers into "Medieval authors". These are terms based entirely on European historical trends and, if they are ever applied to other cultures, they are often used for different time spans (A "Chinese Renaissance" might very well refer to the Song Dynasty, centuries before the European sense of the word—but the dynasties already provide a good enough periodization of Chinese history in most cases). Even in Europe, these are largely cultural—rather than chronological—categories; much ink has been spilled about the "spread" of the Renaissance from Italy outward. Petrarch is considered to be a Renaissance author but most of his contemporaries are not, and our categories for him reflect that confusion. The same is true of "modernity" or "antiquity". In the ideal world, I think we would have categories based only by century, or other arbitrary time spans, and treat periods like "Renaissance" or "Early modern" as literary and artistic movements which are added by editors like other topical categories, rather than based on the years entered into the template. Dominic (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Any set of eras and any set of labels is arbitrary and disputable. Unlike Angr, I wouldn't look for Swift under modern authors and Shakespeare under early modern authors, and I'd be surprised if there were any consensus among any large enough group what early modern and modern means. In my personal cataloging, I have Medieval literature, 16th century lit ... 21st century literature, and an overlapping category Elizabethan (II) literature for post-1954 writings with no standardization on pre-medieval works. It may be overfine, but it works. In any case, I'd prefer a finely divided system with reasonably mnemonic labels even if it takes some learning to figure out what their Wikisource-specific meanings were.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Request

List of Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly - Shouldn't this be a Portal?

In any case isn't NI legislation now covered by the standard UK Crown Waiver or Open Government License? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

In this case, I have deleted it as it had no meaningful content and would never be expanded in its present form. I have to say that I do not understand the Open Government License. Its wording is not clear on whether it covers all legislation and I'm not sure how it works with Wikimedia (see also the Open Parliament License). A new portal can be started for the Northern Ireland Assembly if this is cleared up. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the problem with all this stems from the previous Crown Copyright Waiver. Instead of making a generalized disclaimer covering all the agencies, bodies, etc. of the UK government (something akin to the Federal level) and listing any excluded works or bodies afterwards, it seems the waiver had a companion listing of all the bodies / works it theoretically covered only. Of course that guidance eventually became dated and the lines of responsibility blured over time - making every unlisted entity's (or sub-division of) works a question that had to be put to OPSI officials to be sure of copyright status. There is no includes all works by caveat with the waiver and now the OGL; just an includes [works] with no indication for the limitations that carried over or are newly created.

The OGL merely extended coverage over the same spotty listings as the Crown Waiver did with little to no additional clarification on what waiver conditions meant inclusion & what conditions resulted in exclusion. [1]. At least thats the way it reads for me. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A categorization question

If one category is the child category of another, should an article be categorized in the parent category as well? — Ineuw talk 15:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Going by Wikipedia standards: No. In fact, the opposite is the case, the article should only appear in the child category. I've kept to the same policy here (and Commons etc) but I can see a case for occasional exceptions where categorisation into both would be useful (if it would help a reader, for example; if they would normally expect it to be in both). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Another issue is the organization of medicine and health categories. For example, in my opinion, Category:Dentistry ought to be a child category of medicine (and not health). Using Wikipedia as a guide, it is a child category of Category:Health sciences. This may be a solution in the future as medicine related categories are being added. — Ineuw talk 17:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Medicine and health categorisation is part of my RL paradigm. Please feel free to touch base with me as issues arise. Dentistry real fits under both Medicine and Health depending on the aspect under focus (restoration or prevention). I'll give it some more thought and get back to you. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind offer. I completely agree that it fits under both. This is what makes decisions so difficult. :-). — Ineuw talk 16:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Authors missing Wikipedia links

Hi. I had MZMcBride query the database for pages in the author namespace with exact matching titles (including redirects) on Wikipedia but lacking links to the that article in the author page. These require human checking to resolve, of course. I've been intending to go through it, but it looks like it will be a lot more laborious than I thought, and I've only done a few so far—some are obviously right or wrong, but a lot of the matches are disambiguation pages for common names (meaning you have to find the right one), and some matches are ambiguous due to lack of identifying information (mostly birth/death dates) in the author page or Wikipedia article that would allow corroboration. I could use some help! The list is at User:Dominic/Missing Wikipedia links if anyone is interested. You're welcome to move that page out of my userspace and make a regular project out of it, and to organize it better than a simple table. Dominic (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Schools of Charles the Great (1911)

Could someone upload this book? http://archive.org/details/schoolsofcharles00mulliala

I've been trying to upload it to Commons all day and it is not working.

- Lucyrocks=) (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Done at Commons:File:Schools of Charles the Great.djvu. I'll leave you to add appropriate categories and change it over to the {{Book}} template on Commons before creating the Index here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to busy you more, but I don't know how to do that or put it on here, either. I have just proofread stuff only. - Lucyrocks=) (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikilivres

Hello,

Wikilivres has been taken over by Eclecticology, has a new domain (http://wikilivres.ca/), and is now hosted by Wikimedia Canada. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)